e10vk
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the fiscal year ended
March 31,
2011
|
or
|
o
|
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the transition period
from to
|
Commission File Number:
001-33887
Orion Energy Systems,
Inc.
(Exact name of Registrant as
specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Wisconsin
|
|
39-1847269
|
(State or other jurisdiction
of
incorporation or organization)
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
|
2210 Woodland Drive, Manitowoc, WI
|
|
54220
|
(Address of principal executive
offices)
|
|
(Zip Code)
|
(920) 892-9340
(Registrants telephone
number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
act:
|
|
|
Title of Each Class
|
|
Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
|
|
Common stock, no par value
|
|
NYSE AMEX LLC
|
Common stock purchase rights
|
|
NYSE AMEX LLC
|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
act:
None
Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark if the Registrant is not required to file
reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Act. Yes o No þ
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted
electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any,
every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of
Regulation S-T
(§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to submit and post such files). (Registrant is not
yet required to provide financial disclosure in an Interactive
Data File
format.). Yes o No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
(§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein,
and will not be contained, to the best of registrants
knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements
incorporated by reference in Part III of this
Form 10-K
or any amendment to this
Form 10-K. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated
filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of
large accelerated filer, accelerated
filer and smaller reporting company in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated
filer o
|
|
Accelerated
filer þ
|
|
Non-accelerated
filer o
(Do not check if a smaller
reporting company)
|
|
Smaller reporting
company o
|
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange
Act). Yes o No þ
The aggregate market value of shares of the Registrants
common stock held by non-affiliates as of September 30,
2010, the last business day of the Registrants most
recently completed second fiscal quarter, was approximately
$72,004,102.
At July 14, 2011, there were 22,974,498 shares of the
Registrants common stock outstanding.
DOCUMENTS
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Not applicable.
FORWARD-LOOKING
STATEMENTS
This
Form 10-K
includes forward-looking statements that are based on our
beliefs and assumptions and on information currently available
to us. When used in this
Form 10-K,
the words anticipate, believe,
could, estimate, expect,
intend, may, plan,
potential, predict, project,
should, will, would and
similar expressions identify forward-looking statements.
Although we believe that our plans, intentions, and expectations
reflected in any forward-looking statements are reasonable,
these plans, intentions or expectations are based on
assumptions, are subject to risks and uncertainties and may not
be achieved. These statements are based on assumptions made by
us based on our experience and perception of historical trends,
current conditions, expected future developments and other
factors that we believe are appropriate in the circumstances.
Such statements are subject to a number of risks and
uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control. Our actual
results, performance or achievements could differ materially
from those contemplated, expressed or implied by the
forward-looking statements contained in this
Form 10-K.
Important factors could cause actual results to differ
materially from our forward-looking statements. Given these
uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these
forward-looking statements. Also, forward-looking statements
represent our beliefs and assumptions only as of the date of
this
Form 10-K.
All forward-looking statements attributable to us or persons
acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety
by the cautionary statements set forth in this
Form 10-K.
Actual events, results and outcomes may differ materially from
our expectations due to a variety of factors. Although it is not
possible to identify all of these factors, they include, among
others, the following:
|
|
|
|
|
deterioration of market conditions, including customer capital
expenditure budgets;
|
|
|
|
our ability to compete and execute our growth strategy in a
highly competitive market and our ability to respond
successfully to market competition;
|
|
|
|
increasing duration of customer sales cycles;
|
|
|
|
the market acceptance of our products and services, including
increasing customer preference to purchase our products through
our Orion Throughput Agreements, or OTAs, rather than through
cash purchases;
|
|
|
|
our ability to effectively manage the credit risk associated
with our increasing reliance on OTA contracts;
|
|
|
|
price fluctuations, shortages or interruptions of component
supplies and raw materials used to manufacture our products;
|
|
|
|
loss of one or more key employees, customers or suppliers,
including key contacts at such customers;
|
|
|
|
our ability to effectively manage our product inventory to
provide our products to customers on a timely basis;
|
|
|
|
the increasing relative volume of our product sales through our
wholesale channel;
|
|
|
|
a reduction in the price of electricity;
|
|
|
|
the cost to comply with, and the effects of, any current and
future government regulations, laws and policies;
|
|
|
|
increased competition from government subsidies and utility
incentive programs;
|
|
|
|
dependence on customers capital budgets for sales of
products and services;
|
|
|
|
our development of, and participation in, new product and
technology offerings or applications;
|
|
|
|
the availability of additional debt financing
and/or
equity capital;
|
|
|
|
legal proceedings; and
|
|
|
|
potential warranty claims.
|
You are urged to carefully consider these factors and the other
factors described under Part I. Item 1A. Risk
Factors when evaluating any forward-looking statements,
and you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking
statements.
Except as required by applicable law, we assume no obligation to
update any forward-looking statements publicly or to update the
reasons why actual results could differ materially from those
anticipated in any forward-looking statements, even if new
information becomes available in the future.
2
ORION
ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.
ANNUAL REPORT ON
FORM 10-K
FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2011
Table of Contents
3
The following business overview is qualified in its entirety
by the more detailed information included elsewhere or
incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
As used herein, unless otherwise expressly stated or the context
otherwise requires, all references to Orion,
we, us, our,
Company and similar references are to Orion Energy
Systems, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries.
Restatement
of Previously Issued Consolidated Financial Statements
In this Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
we have restated our previously issued consolidated financial
statements and related disclosures for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2010 and each of the unaudited quarterly
condensed consolidated financial statements for the periods
ended June 30, 2009 through December 31, 2010 to
reclassify our transactions under our Orion Throughput
Agreements, or OTAs, as sales-type leases instead of as
operating leases.
Our prior method of accounting for OTA transactions as operating
leases deferred revenue recognition over the full term of the
OTA contracts, only recognizing revenue on a monthly basis as
customer payments became due, while the upfront sales, general
and administrative expenses related to these OTA contracts were
recognized immediately. On June 9, 2011, we concluded that
generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, required us
to reclassify our transactions under our OTAs as sales-type
leases instead of as operating leases. We voluntarily submitted
our determination of the proper accounting treatment for the
OTAs for confirmation with the Office of the Chief Accountant of
the Securities and Exchange Commission, which did not object to
our conclusion.
Accounting for OTA contracts as sales-type leases under GAAP
requires us to record revenue at the net present value of the
future payments at the time customer acceptance of our installed
and operating energy management system is complete, rather than
deferring revenue recognition over the full term of the OTA
contracts. Generally, this change in accounting treatment and
financial statement restatements has resulted in:
|
|
|
|
|
No impact to our cash, cash equivalents, short-term investments;
or overall cash flow;
|
|
|
|
|
|
An increase in our revenue of $2.8 million (3%) and
$2.7 million (4%) for our full fiscal years 2011 and 2010,
respectively;
|
|
|
|
|
|
An increase in our net income of $0.4 million (34%) and
earnings per share of $0.02 (40%) for our full fiscal year 2011
and a reduction in our net loss of $0.7 million (17%) and
loss per share of $0.03 (16%) for our full fiscal year 2010;
|
|
|
|
|
|
An increase in our current assets of $3.8 million (6%) and
total assets of $1.0 million (1%) and an increase in our
total shareholders equity of $0.7 million (1%) for
our fiscal year 2010 and an increase in our current assets of
$2.7 million (4%) and total assets of $0.5 million
(1%) and an increase in our total shareholders equity of
$1.6 million (2%) and a decrease in our total liabilities
of $1.1 million (5%) for our fiscal year 2011; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
An increase in our net cash used in operating activities of
$2.4 million (38%), a decrease in net our cash used in
investing activities of $2.0 million (26%) and an increase
in our net cash provided by financing activities of
$0.4 million (18%) for our fiscal year 2011 and an increase
in our net cash used in operating activities of
$2.1 million (24%) and a decrease in net our cash used in
investing activities of $2.1 million (40%) for our fiscal
year 2010; and
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
An increase in our revenue, net income and earnings per share
for the first three quarters of each of our fiscal years 2011
and 2010 and a decrease in revenue, net income and earnings per
share for the last quarter of fiscal year 2010 as follows (in
thousands except per share amounts):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss)
|
|
|
Earnings (Loss) Per Diluted Share
|
|
|
|
Previously
|
|
|
As
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Previously
|
|
|
As
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
Previously
|
|
|
As
|
|
Period
|
|
Reported
|
|
|
Restated
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Reported
|
|
|
Restated
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Reported
|
|
|
Restated
|
|
|
Quarter Ended June 30, 2009
|
|
$
|
12,628
|
|
|
$
|
13,875
|
|
|
|
9.9
|
%
|
|
$
|
(2,773
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2,080
|
)
|
|
|
25.0
|
%
|
|
$
|
(0.13
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.10
|
)
|
Quarter Ended Sept. 30, 2009
|
|
|
14,619
|
|
|
|
16,075
|
|
|
|
10.0
|
%
|
|
|
(1,399
|
)
|
|
|
(932
|
)
|
|
|
33.4
|
%
|
|
$
|
(0.06
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.04
|
)
|
Quarter Ended Dec. 31, 2009
|
|
|
19,295
|
|
|
|
20,827
|
|
|
|
7.9
|
%
|
|
|
807
|
|
|
|
754
|
|
|
|
(6.6
|
)%
|
|
$
|
0.04
|
|
|
$
|
0.03
|
|
Quarter Ended March 31, 2010
|
|
|
18,876
|
|
|
|
17,296
|
|
|
|
(8.4
|
)%
|
|
|
(825
|
)
|
|
|
(1,215
|
)
|
|
|
(47.3
|
)%
|
|
$
|
(0.04
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.05
|
)
|
Quarter Ended June 30, 2010
|
|
|
14,688
|
|
|
|
16,977
|
|
|
|
15.6
|
%
|
|
|
(1,055
|
)
|
|
|
(536
|
)
|
|
|
49.2
|
%
|
|
$
|
(0.05
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.02
|
)
|
Quarter Ended Sept. 30, 2010
|
|
|
13,715
|
|
|
|
15,853
|
|
|
|
15.6
|
%
|
|
|
(160
|
)
|
|
|
540
|
|
|
|
437.5
|
%
|
|
$
|
(0.01
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.02
|
|
Quarter Ended Dec. 31, 2010
|
|
|
29,671
|
|
|
|
30,056
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
|
|
644
|
|
|
|
756
|
|
|
|
17.4
|
%
|
|
$
|
0.03
|
|
|
$
|
0.03
|
|
We do not plan to amend our previously filed Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 due to the
restatement of our previously issued consolidated financial
statements and related disclosures for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2010 contained herein. However, we plan to amend
our Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q
for the periods ended June 30, 2009 through
December 31, 2010 to reflect the restatements described in
this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
As a result of the restatement, the financial statements and
related financial statement information contained in those
reports should no longer be relied upon. Throughout this Annual
Report on
Form 10-K,
all amounts presented from prior periods and prior period
comparisons that have been revised are labeled As
Restated and reflect the balances and amounts on a
restated basis.
Overview
We design, manufacture, market and implement energy management
systems consisting primarily of high-performance, energy
efficient lighting systems, controls and related services and
market and implement renewable energy systems consisting
primarily of solar generating photovoltaic systems and wind
turbines. We operate in two business segments, which we refer to
as our energy management division and our engineered systems
division.
Our
Energy Management Division
Our energy management division develops, manufactures and sells
commercial high intensity fluorescent, or HIF, lighting systems
and energy management systems. Our energy management systems
deliver energy savings and efficiency gains to our commercial
and industrial customers without compromising their quantity or
quality of light. The core of our energy management system is
our HIF lighting system that we estimate cuts our
customers lighting-related electricity costs by
approximately 50%, while increasing their quantity of light by
approximately 50% and improving lighting quality when replacing
traditional high intensity discharge, or HID, fixtures. Our
customers typically realize a
two-to-three-year
payback period from electricity cost savings generated by our
HIF lighting systems without considering utility incentives or
government subsidies. We have sold and installed our HIF
fixtures in over 6,800 facilities across North America,
representing over one billion square feet of commercial and
industrial building space, including for many Fortune
500 companies.
Our core energy management system is comprised of: our HIF
lighting system; our InteLite wireless lighting controls; our
Apollo Solar Light Pipe, which collects and focuses renewable
daylight and consumes no electricity; and our integrated energy
management services. We believe that the implementation of our
complete energy management system enables our customers to
further reduce electricity costs, while permanently reducing
base and peak load demand from the electrical grid. From
December 1, 2001 through March 31, 2011, we installed
over 2,056,000 HIF lighting systems for our commercial and
industrial customers. We are focused on leveraging this
installed base to expand our customer relationships from
single-site implementations of our HIF lighting systems to
enterprise-wide roll-outs of our complete energy management
system. We have also expanded our product and service offerings
by providing our customers with exterior lighting products and
renewable energy solutions. We generally have focused on selling
retrofit projects whereby we replace inefficient HID,
fluorescent or incandescent
5
systems. In fiscal 2011, we generated approximately 47% of our
revenue through direct sales relationships with end users,
compared to 58% in fiscal 2010 and 60% in fiscal 2009. We
continue to develop resellers and partner relationships that
utilize our systematized sales process to increase overall
market coverage and awareness in regional and local markets
along with electrical contractors that provide installation
services for these projects. Reflecting our increased emphasis
on expanding this sales channel, approximately 53% of our
revenues in fiscal 2011 were generated from such indirect sales,
compared to 42% in fiscal 2010 and 40% in fiscal 2009.
We estimate that the use of our HIF fixtures has resulted in
cumulative electricity cost savings for our customers of
approximately $1.2 billion and has reduced base and peak
load electricity demand by approximately 639 megawatts, or MW,
through March 31, 2011. We estimate that this reduced
electricity consumption has reduced associated indirect carbon
dioxide emissions by approximately 10.1 million tons over
the same period.
For a description of the assumptions behind our calculations of
customer kilowatt demand reduction, customer kilowatt hours and
electricity costs saved and reductions in indirect carbon
dioxide emissions associated with our products used throughout
this Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
see the following table and notes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative from
|
|
|
December 1, 2001
|
|
|
through March 31, 2011
|
|
|
(In thousands, unaudited)
|
|
HIF lighting systems sold(1)
|
|
|
2,056
|
|
Total units sold (including HIF lighting systems)
|
|
|
2,715
|
|
Customer kilowatt demand reduction(2)
|
|
|
639
|
|
Customer kilowatt hours saved(2)(3)
|
|
|
15,494,020
|
|
Customer electricity costs saved(4)
|
|
$
|
1,193,040
|
|
Indirect carbon dioxide emission reductions from customers
energy savings (tons)(5)
|
|
|
10,067
|
|
Square footage retrofitted(6)
|
|
|
1,054,122
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
HIF lighting systems includes all HIF units sold
under the brand name Compact Modular and its
predecessor, Illuminator. |
|
(2) |
|
A substantial majority of our HIF lighting systems, which
generally operate at approximately 224 watts per six-lamp
fixture, are installed in replacement of HID fixtures, which
generally operate at approximately 465 watts per fixture in
commercial and industrial applications. We calculate that each
six-lamp HIF lighting system we install in replacement of an HID
fixture generally reduces electricity consumption by
approximately 241 watts (the difference between 465 watts and
224 watts). In retrofit projects where we replace fixtures other
than HID fixtures, or where we replace fixtures with products
other than our HIF lighting systems (which other products
generally consist of products with lamps similar to those used
in our HIF systems, but with varying frames, ballasts or power
packs), we generally achieve similar wattage reductions (based
on an analysis of the operating wattages of each of our fixtures
compared to the operating wattage of the fixtures they typically
replace). We calculate the amount of kilowatt demand reduction
by multiplying (i) 0.241 kilowatts per six-lamp equivalent
unit we install by (ii) the number of units we have
installed in the period presented, including products other than
our HIF lighting systems (or a total of approximately
2.25 million units). |
|
(3) |
|
We calculate the number of kilowatt hours saved on a cumulative
basis by assuming the demand (kW) reduction for each fixture and
assuming that each such unit has averaged 7,500 annual operating
hours since its installation. |
|
(4) |
|
We calculate our customers electricity costs saved by
multiplying the cumulative total customer kilowatt hours saved
indicated in the table by $0.077 per kilowatt hour. The national
average rate for 2010, which is the most current full year for
which this information is available, was $0.0988 per kilowatt
hour according to the United States Energy Information
Administration. |
|
(5) |
|
We calculate this figure by multiplying (i) the estimated
amount of carbon dioxide emissions that result from the
generation of one kilowatt hour of electricity (determined using
the Emissions and Generation Resource Integration Database, or
EGrid, prepared by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, or EPA), by (ii) the number of customer kilowatt
hours saved as indicated in the table. |
6
|
|
|
(6) |
|
Based on 2.7 million total units sold, which contain a
total of approximately 13.5 million lamps. Each lamp
illuminates approximately 75 square feet. The majority of
our installed fixtures contain six lamps and typically
illuminate approximately 450 square feet. |
Our
Engineered Systems Division
In August 2009, we created our engineered systems division,
which operates out of our Plymouth, WI facility and sells and
integrates alternative renewable energy systems and provides
technical services for our sale of HIF lighting systems and
energy management systems. Our engineered systems division is
also responsible for our project management activities and
related services for both HIF lighting and renewable technology
projects. During our fiscal 2011 third quarter, revenue from our
engineered systems division exceeded the quantitative threshold
under GAAP to report as a separate segment.
Our
Industry
As a company focused on providing energy management systems, our
market opportunity is created by growing electricity capacity
shortages, underinvestment in transmission and distribution, or
T&D infrastructure, high electricity costs and the high
financial and environmental costs associated with adding
generation capacity and upgrading the T&D infrastructure.
The United States electricity market is generally characterized
by rising demand, increasing electricity costs and power
reliability issues due to continued constraints on generation
and T&D capacity. Electricity demand is expected to grow
steadily over the coming decades and significant challenges
exist in meeting this increase in demand, including the
environmental concerns associated with generation assets using
fossil fuels. These constraints are causing governments,
utilities and businesses to focus on demand reduction
initiatives, including energy efficiency and other demand-side
management solutions.
Todays
Electricity Market
Growing Demand for Electricity. Demand for
electricity in the United States has grown steadily in recent
years and is expected to grow significantly for the foreseeable
future. According to the Energy Information Administration, or
EIA, $353.3 billion was spent on electricity in 2010
in the United States, up from $233.1 billion in 2000, an
increase of 52%. Additionally, the EIA identified that
consumption was 3,749 billion kWh in 2010 and predicts it
will increase by 34% to 5,021 billion kWh in 2035.
According to the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation, or NERC, demand for electricity is expected to
increase through 2016 by approximately 17% in the United States,
but generation capacity is expected to increase by only
approximately 8.4% to 12.7% of existing generating capacity in
the United States during that same period. While the recent
recession has led to a slowing in demand growth from
approximately 2% per year to below 1.5% year, according to NERC,
there are still significant parts of the country including the
Southwest Power Pool, or SPP, and the Southeast Electric
Reliability Council, or SERC, that are still experiencing
significant transmission constraints. These two regional
transmission organizations, or RTOs, serve the power needs of
Alabama (SERC), Arkansas (SPP/SERC), Illinois (SERC), Florida
(SERC), Georgia (SERC), Kansas (SPP), Kentucky (SERC), Louisiana
(SPP/SERC), Mississippi (SPP/SERC), Missouri (SPP/SERC),
Nebraska (SPP), New Mexico (SPP), North Carolina (SERC),
Oklahoma (SPP/SERC), South Carolina (SERC), Tennessee (SERC),
Texas (SPP/SERC) and Virginia (SERC). According to the
International Energy Agency, or IEA, North America is expected
to add 698,000 MW of additional capacity at a cost of $2.4
trillion between 2009 and 2030 to reliably meet expected annual
growth in demand. Worldwide, the IEA, expects 4,799,000 MW
of additional capacity to be required over the same period at a
total cost of $13.7 trillion. We believe that meeting this
increasing domestic electricity demand will require either an
increase in energy supply through capacity expansion, broader
adoption of demand management programs, or a combination of
these solutions.
Challenges to Capacity Expansion. Based on the
forecasted growth in electricity demand, the EIA, in its Annual
Energy Outlook for 2011, estimates that the United States will
require 223 gigawatts, or GW, of new generating capacity by 2035
(the equivalent of 500 power plants rated at an average of
500 MW each). According to data provided by the IEA, we
estimate that new generating capacity and associated T&D
investment will cost at least $2.8 million per MW.
7
In addition to the high financial costs associated with adding
power generation capacity, there are environmental concerns
about the effects of emissions from additional power plants,
especially coal-fired power plants. According to the IEA in its
Annual Energy Outlook for 2010, federal and state energy
policies recently enacted will stimulate the increased use of
renewable technologies and efficiency improvements, slowing the
growth of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions through
2035. Additionally, the EIA believes that by 2035, total
carbon dioxide emissions will be approximately
6,311 million metric tons, which is approximately 12%
higher than 2010 levels. Of the projected 223 GW of new
generating capacity required by 2035, coal-fired plants, which
generate significant emissions of carbon dioxide and other
pollutants, are projected to account for only 11% of added
capacity between 2010 and 2035; however, coal fired generation
will still power 28% of the countrys electricity
generation in 2035, according to the EIA. We believe that
concerns over emissions may make it increasingly difficult for
utilities to add coal-fired generating capacity. Clean coal
energy initiatives are characterized by an uncertain legislative
and regulatory framework and would involve substantial
infrastructure cost to readily commercialize.
Although the EIA expects clean-burning natural gas-fired plants
to account for 60% of total required domestic capacity additions
between 2010 and 2035, natural gas prices are directly tied to
technological developments and opportunities to capture new
sources of natural gas, which according to the EIA in its Annual
Energy Outlook for 2010 is leading to a great deal of
uncertainty about the long term trend in natural gas
prices. Additionally, natural gas prices have
approximately doubled in the last decade according to the EIA.
Environmentally-friendly renewable energy alternatives, such as
solar and wind, generally require subsidies and rebates to be
cost competitive and do not provide continuous electricity
generation. Despite these challenges, the EIA projects that 24%
of new capacity additions between 2010 and 2035 will be
renewable technologies, due in large part to regulatory
initiatives mandating the use of renewable energy sources. We
believe these challenges to expanding generating capacity will
increase the need for energy efficiency initiatives to meet
demand growth.
Underinvestment in Electricity Transmission and
Distribution. According to the Department of
Energy, or DOE, the majority of United States transmission
lines, transformers and circuit breakers the
backbone of the United States T&D system is
more than 25 years old. The underinvestment in T&D
infrastructure has led to well-documented power reliability
issues, such as the August 2003 blackout that affected a number
of states in the northeastern United States. To upgrade and
maintain the United States T&D system, the Brattle Group,
in a November 2008 report for the Edison Foundation, estimates
that it will cost over $800 billion between 2010 and 2030.
The underinvestment in T&D infrastructure is projected to
become more pronounced as electricity demand grows. According to
NERC, the growth in electricity demand is expected to outpace
the growth in transmission capacity by a significant amount
between now and 2015.
High Electricity Costs. Due to the recent
recessionary impact within the U.S. during 2009 and 2010,
electricity pricing has declined slightly from prior years due
to declining demand charges and lower capacity costs for open
market purchases of electricity in deregulated states. Prior to
2009, the price of one kWh of electricity (in nominal dollars,
including the effects of inflation) had reached historic highs,
according to the EIAs Annual Review of Energy 2007. Based
on the most recent EIA electricity rate and consumption data
available (February 2011), we estimate that commercial and
industrial electricity expenditures rose 73.9% and 32.3%,
respectively, from 1995 to 2010, and rose by 0.6% and 5.2%,
respectively, in comparing monthly expenditures in February 2010
and February 2011. We believe that recent increases in
electricity costs will become more pronounced during an economic
upturn or through the aging grid supply system and that
electricity cost increases will return to the rates experienced
prior to 2009 and will continue to increase. As a result, we
believe that electricity costs will continue to be an
increasingly significant operating expense for businesses,
particularly those with large commercial and industrial
facilities.
Our
Market Opportunity
We believe that energy efficiency measures represent permanent,
cost-effective and environmentally-friendly alternatives to
expanding electricity capacity in order to meet demand growth.
The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, or ACEEE,
in a 2011 fact sheet estimated that the United States can reduce
up to 25%-30% of its estimated electricity usage over the next
25 to 30 years, by deploying all currently available
cost-effective energy efficiency products and technologies
across commercial, industrial and residential market sectors.
Moreover, the ACEEE asserts that these gains can be done at
significantly lower costs for energy efficiency ($0.03 per kWh)
than
8
for traditional or renewable generation ($0.06 to $0.20 per
kWh). As a result, we believe governments, utilities and
businesses are increasingly focused on demand reduction through
energy efficiency and demand management programs. For example:
|
|
|
|
|
Forty-nine states, through legislation, regulation or
voluntarily, have seen their utilities design and fund programs
that promote or deliver energy efficiency. In fact, as of
March 31, 2011, only Alaska and the District of Columbia,
do not have some form of utility or state energy efficiency
programs for any of their commercial or industrial customers.
|
|
|
|
According to the ACEEE, as of June 2011, 26 states have
implemented, or are in the process of implementing, Energy
Efficiency Resource Standards, or EERS, or have an energy
efficiency component to their Renewable Portfolio Standard, or
RPS, which generally requires utilities to allocate funds to
energy efficiency programs to meet near-term energy savings
targets set by state governments or regulatory authorities.
|
|
|
|
In recent years, there has also been an increasing focus on
decoupling, a regulatory initiative designed to
break the linkage between utility kWh sales and revenues, in
order to remove the disincentives for utilities to promote load
reducing initiatives. Decoupling aims to encourage utilities to
actively promote energy efficiency by allowing utilities to
generate revenues and returns on investment from employing
energy management solutions. According to the Pew Center on
Global Climate Change, 20 states had adopted or are
considering adopting some form of decoupling for electric
utilities.
|
One method utilities use to reduce demand is the implementation
of demand response programs. Demand response is a method of
reducing electricity usage during periods of peak demand in
order to promote grid stability, either by temporarily
curtailing end use or by shifting generation to backup sources,
typically at customer facilities. While demand response is an
effective tool for addressing peak demand, these programs are
called upon to reduce consumption typically for only up to
200 hours per year, based on demand conditions, and require
end users to compromise their consumption patterns, for example
by reducing lighting or air conditioning.
We believe that given the costs of adding new capacity and the
limited demand time period that is addressed by current demand
response initiatives, there is a significant opportunity for
more comprehensive energy efficiency solutions to permanently
reduce electricity demand during both peak and off-peak periods.
We believe such solutions are a compelling way for businesses,
utilities and regulators to meet rising demand in a
cost-effective and environmentally-friendly manner. We also
believe that, in order to gain acceptance among end users,
energy efficiency solutions must offer substantial energy
savings and return on investment, without requiring compromises
in energy usage patterns.
The
Role of Lighting
Commercial and industrial facilities in the United States employ
a variety of lighting technologies, including HID, traditional
fluorescents, LED and incandescent lighting fixtures. Our HIF
lighting systems typically replace HID fixtures, which operate
inefficiently because, according to EPRI, HID fixtures only
convert approximately 36% of the energy they consume into
visible light. We believe that the U.S. market opportunity
for HID retrofits is $9.6 billion. We base this estimate on
the most recent EIA Commercial and Manufacturing Energy
Consumption Survey published in September 2008, which states
that a total of 81.9 billion commercial and industrial
square feet are estimated to exist in the U.S. Estimates
from the DOE concur with this statistic, as they indicate that
there is 85.0 billion square feet of rooftop surface area
for commercial and industrial buildings. We estimate that
20.6 billion of these square feet are eligible for HID
retrofits, based upon our analysis of the EIAs market
sector data giving consideration to a buildings principal
activity or purpose and the related square feet. Based on our
experience that each HID fixture covers 450 square feet,
approximately 45.7 million HID fixtures would be required
to cover the estimated 20.6 billion square feet eligible
for HID retrofits, at an estimated average cost per fixture of
approximately $210.
9
Our
Solution
50/50 Value Proposition. We estimate our HIF
lighting systems generally reduce lighting-related electricity
costs by approximately 50% compared to HID fixtures, while
increasing the quantity of light by approximately 50% and
improving lighting quality. From December 1, 2001 through
March 31, 2011, we believe that the use of our HIF fixtures
has saved our customers $1.2 billion in electricity costs
and reduced their energy consumption by 15.5 billion kWh.
Multi-Facility Roll-Out Capability. We offer
our customers a single source, turn-key solution for project
implementation in which we manage and maintain responsibility
for entire multi-facility roll-outs of our energy management
solutions across North American real estate portfolios. This
capability allows us to offer our customers an orderly, timely
and scheduled process for recognizing energy reductions and cost
savings.
Rapid Payback Period. In most retrofit
projects where we replace HID fixtures, our customers typically
realize a two- to three-year payback period on our HIF lighting
systems. These returns are achieved without considering utility
incentives or government subsidies (although subsidies and
incentives are increasingly being made available to our
customers and us in connection with the installation of our
systems and further shorten payback periods).
Comprehensive Energy Management System. Our
comprehensive energy management system enables us to reduce our
customers base and peak load electricity consumption. By
replacing existing HID fixtures with our HIF lighting systems,
our customers permanently reduce base load electricity
consumption while significantly increasing their quantity and
quality of light. We can also add intelligence to the
customers lighting system through the implementation of
our InteLite wireless dynamic control devices. These devices
allow our customers the ability to control and adjust their
lighting and energy use levels for additional cost savings.
Finally, we offer a further reduction in electricity consumption
through the installation and integration of our Apollo Solar
Light Pipe, which is a lens-based device that collects and
focuses renewable daylight without consuming electricity. By
integrating our Apollo Solar Light Pipe and HIF lighting system
with the intelligence of our InteLite product line, the output
and electricity consumption of our HIF lighting systems can be
automatically adjusted based on the level of natural light being
provided by our Apollo Light Pipe and, in certain circumstances,
our customers can illuminate their facilities off the
grid during peak hours of the day.
Easy Installation, Implementation and
Maintenance. Our HIF fixtures are designed with a
lightweight construction and modular
plug-and-play
architecture that allows for fast and easy installation,
facilitates maintenance and allows for easy integration of other
components of our energy management system. We believe our
systems design reduces installation time and expense
compared to other lighting solutions, which further improves our
customers return on investment. We also believe that our
use of standard components reduces our customers ongoing
maintenance costs.
Expanded Product/Service Offerings. We have
expanded our product and service offerings by providing our
customers with alternative renewable energy systems through our
Orion Engineered Systems division. We have also recently
introduced exterior lighting products for parking lot and
roadway illumination, an LED product offering for freezer and
cold storage applications, and a hybrid fixture combining the
performance benefits of both LED and fluorescent bulb
technologies.
Base and Peak Load Relief for Utilities. The
implementation of our energy management systems can
substantially reduce our customers electricity demand
during peak and off-peak periods. Since we believe that
commercial and industrial lighting represents approximately 14%
of total energy usage in the United States, our systems can
substantially reduce the need for additional base and peak load
generation and distribution capacity, while reducing the impact
of peak demand periods on the electrical grid. We estimate that
the HIF fixtures we have installed from December 1, 2001
through March 31, 2011 have had the effect of reducing base
and peak load demand by approximately 639 MW.
Environmental Benefits. By permanently
reducing electricity consumption, our energy management systems
reduce associated indirect carbon dioxide emissions that would
otherwise have resulted from generation of this energy. We
estimate that one of our HIF lighting systems, when replacing a
standard HID fixture, displaces 0.241 kW of electricity, which,
based on information provided by the EPA, reduces a
customers indirect carbon dioxide
10
emissions by approximately 1.2 tons per year. Based on these
figures, we estimate that the use of our HIF fixtures has
reduced indirect carbon dioxide emissions by approximately
10.1 million tons through March 31, 2011.
Our
Competitive Strengths
Compelling Value Proposition. By permanently
reducing lighting-related electricity usage, our systems enable
our commercial and industrial customers to achieve significant
cost savings, without compromising the quantity or quality of
light in their facilities. As a result, our energy management
systems offer our customers a rapid return on their investment,
without relying on government subsidies or utility incentives.
We believe our ability to deliver improved lighting quality
while reducing electricity costs differentiates our value
proposition from other demand management solutions which require
end users to alter the time, manner or duration of their
electricity use to achieve cost savings. We also offer our
customers a single source solution whereby we manage and are
responsible for the entire project, including installation and
manufacturing across the entire North American real estate
portfolio. Our ability to offer such a turn-key, national
solution allows us to deliver energy reductions and cost savings
to our customers in timely, orderly and planned multi-facility
roll-outs.
Large and Growing Customer Base. We have
developed a large and growing national customer base, and have
installed our products in over 6,800 commercial and industrial
facilities across North America. As of March 31, 2011, we
have completed or are in the process of completing retrofits in
over 1,500 facilities for our customers who are Fortune
500 companies. We believe that the willingness of our
blue-chip customers to install our products across multiple
facilities represents a significant endorsement of our value
proposition, which in turn helps us sell our energy management
systems to new customers.
Systematized Sales Process. We have invested
substantial resources in the development of our innovative sales
process. We sell directly to our end user customers using a
systematized multi-step sales process that focuses on our value
proposition and provides our sales force with specific,
identified tasks that govern their interactions with our
customers from the point of lead generation through delivery of
our products and services. Management of this process seeks to
continually improve salesforce effectiveness while
simultaneously improving salesforce efficiency. We also train
select partners and resellers to follow our systemized sales
process, thereby extending our sales reach while making their
businesses more effective.
Innovative Technology. We have developed a
portfolio of 36 United States patents primarily covering various
elements of our HIF fixtures. We believe these innovations allow
our HIF fixtures to produce more light output per unit of input
energy compared to competitive HIF product offerings. We also
have 23 patents pending that primarily cover various elements of
our InteLite wireless controls and our Apollo Solar Light Pipe
and certain business methods. To complement our innovative
energy management products, we have introduced integrated energy
management services to provide our customers with a turnkey
solution either at a single facility or across North American
facility footprints. We believe that our demonstrated ability to
innovate provides us with significant competitive advantages. We
believe that our HIF solutions offer significantly more light
output as measured in foot-candles of light delivered per watt
of electricity consumed when compared to HID, traditional
fluorescent and light emitting diode, or LED, light sources.
Expanded Product/Service Offerings. We have
expanded our product and service offerings by providing our
customers with alternative renewable energy systems through our
Orion Engineered Systems division. In fiscal 2010, we began
researching three test solar photovoltaic electricity generating
projects, completing our test analysis on two of the three in
the third quarter of fiscal 2010, and executed our first cash
sale and our first purchase power agreement, or PPA, as a result
of the successful testing of these systems. A PPA is a supply
side agreement for the generation of electricity and subsequent
sale to the end user. We completed the installation and customer
acceptance of the third test system during our fiscal 2011 first
quarter. During fiscal 2011, we executed seven additional
contracts for renewable technology product sales. We have also
recently introduced exterior lighting products for parking lot,
gas station canopies and roadway illumination and an LED product
offering for freezer and cold storage applications.
Expanded Partner Network. In addition to
selling directly to commercial and industrial customers, we sell
our energy management products and services indirectly to end
users through wholesale sales to electrical contractors and
value-added resellers. In fiscal 2010, we increased our focus on
selling through our contractor
11
and value-added reseller channels with the development of a
partner recruitment team that focuses on recruiting and
developing partners in key markets with a higher saturation of
commercial and industrial buildings. In fiscal 2011, we began
developing an integrated partner network and have developed
standard operating procedures related to their sales and
operations. Our integrated partners are required to have
in-market technology demonstration centers to showcase our
products and are trained to conduct their own energy workshops
for their in-market customers. We now have relationships with
more than 100 partners, some of whom are exclusive agents for
our product lines. We intend to continue to build out our
partner network in the future and expect an increasing
percentage of our total revenue to be generated from our
partners.
Strong, Experienced Leadership Team. We have a
strong and experienced senior management team led by our chief
executive officer, Neal R. Verfuerth, who was the principal
founder of our company in 1996 and invented many of the products
that form our energy management system. Our senior executive
management team of seven individuals has a combined
51 years of experience with our company and a combined
76 years of experience in the lighting and energy
management industries.
Innovative Financing Solutions. We have
developed a patent-pending financing program called the Orion
Throughput Agreement, or OTA. Our OTA is structured similarly to
a supply contract under which we commit to deliver a set amount
of energy savings to the customer at a fixed monthly rate. Our
OTA program allows customers to deploy our energy management
systems without having to make upfront investments or capital
outlays. After the pre-determined amount of energy savings are
delivered, our customers assume full ownership of the energy
management system and benefit from the entire amount of energy
savings over the remaining useful life of the technology. We
believe the OTA allows us to capture customer sales
opportunities that otherwise may not have occurred due to
capital constraints.
Efficient, Scalable Manufacturing Process. We
have made significant investments in our manufacturing facility
since fiscal 2005, including investments in production
efficiencies, automated processes and modern production
equipment. These investments have substantially increased our
production capacity, which we believe will enable us to support
substantially increased demand from our current level. In
addition, these investments, combined with our modular product
design and use of standard components, enable us to reduce our
cost of revenue, while better controlling production quality,
and allow us to be responsive to customer needs on a timely
basis. We generally are able to deliver standard products within
several weeks of receipt of order which leads to greater energy
savings to customers through shorter implementation time frames.
We believe the sales to implementation cycles for our
competitors are substantially longer.
Our
Growth Strategies
Leverage Existing Customer Base. We are
expanding our relationships with our existing customers by
transitioning from single-site facility implementations to
comprehensive enterprise-wide roll-outs of our HIF lighting
systems. We also intend to leverage our large installed base of
HIF lighting systems to implement all aspects of our energy
management system, as well as our additional
alternative/renewable energy solutions for our existing
customers.
Target Additional Customers. We are expanding
our base of commercial and industrial customers by executing our
systematized sales process with our direct sales force and
through our existing resellers and partners. In addition, we are
continuing to execute on a sales and marketing program designed
to develop new relationships with partners, resellers and their
respective customers. For fiscal 2012, we have added a
telemarketing group to generate sales leads and schedule
appointments for our internal salespeople and our partners and
resellers.
Develop New Sources of Revenue Through Expanded
Product/Service Offerings. We have introduced our
InteLite wireless dynamic controls, Apollo Solar Light Pipe and
outdoor lighting products to complement our core HIF lighting
systems. We are continuing to develop new energy management
products and services that can be utilized in connection with
our current products, including intelligent HVAC integration
controls, renewable energy solutions, exterior parking lot
lighting products, comprehensive lighting management software
and controls and additional consulting services.
12
Expanded Partner Network. In addition to
selling directly to commercial and industrial customers, we sell
our energy management products and services indirectly to end
users through wholesale sales to electrical contractors and
value-added resellers. We intend to continue to build out our
partner network in the future, including the addition of
integration partners. Our integration partners represent Orion
products exclusively, maintain product demonstration areas
within their facilities, are offered our lowest pricing level
and follow Orion standard operating procedures related to their
sales, project management and operational activities. Our
partner expansion team focuses on aggressively recruiting and
developing new partners in markets where we currently do not
have representation and markets with high concentrations of
commercial and industrial buildings.
Provide Load Relief to Utilities and Grid
Operators. Because commercial and industrial
lighting represents a significant percentage of overall
electricity usage, we believe that as we increase our market
penetration, our systems will, in the aggregate, have a
significant impact on permanently reducing base and peak load
electricity demand. We estimate our HIF lighting systems can
generally eliminate demand at a cost of approximately
$1.0 million per MW when used in replacement of typical HID
fixtures, as compared to the IEAs estimate of
approximately $2.8 million per MW of capacity for new
generation and T&D assets. We intend to market our energy
management systems directly to utilities and grid operators as a
lower-cost, permanent and distributed alternative to capacity
expansion. We believe that utilities and grid operators may
increasingly view our systems as a way to help them meet their
requirements to provide reliable electric power to their
customers in a cost-effective and environmentally-friendly
manner. In addition, we believe that potential regulatory
decoupling initiatives could increase the amount of incentives
that utilities and grid operators will be willing to pay us or
our customers for the installation of our systems.
Continue to Improve Operational
Efficiencies. We are focused on continually
improving the efficiency of our operations to increase the
profitability of our business. In our manufacturing operations,
we pursue opportunities to reduce our materials, component and
manufacturing costs through product engineering, manufacturing
process improvements, research and development on alternative
materials and components, volume purchasing and investments in
manufacturing equipment and automation. We also seek to reduce
our installation costs by training our authorized installers to
perform retrofits more efficiently and cost effectively. We have
also undertaken initiatives to achieve operating expense
efficiencies by more effectively executing our systematized
multi-step sales process and focusing on
geographically-concentrated sales efforts. We believe that
realizing these efficiencies will enhance our profitability
potential and allow us to continue to deliver our compelling
value proposition.
Products
and Services
We provide a variety of products and services that together
comprise our energy management system. The core of our energy
management system is our HIF lighting platform, which we
primarily sell under the Compact Modular brand name. We offer
our customers the option to build on our core HIF lighting
platform by adding our InteLite wireless dynamic control devices
and Apollo Solar Light Pipes. Together with these products, we
offer our customers a variety of integrated energy management
services, such as system design, project management and
installation. We refer to the combination of these products and
services as our energy management system. Additionally, we
provide renewable energy solutions, including solar and wind to
our customers.
Products
The following is a description of our primary products:
The Compact Modular. Our primary product is
our line of high-performance HIF lighting systems, the Compact
Modular, which includes a variety of fixture configurations to
meet customer specifications. The Compact Modular generally
operates at 224 watts per six-lamp fixture, compared to
approximately 465 watts for the HID fixtures that it typically
replaces. This wattage difference is the primary reason our HIF
lighting systems are able to reduce electricity consumption by
approximately 50% compared to HID fixtures. Our Compact Modular
has a thermally efficient design that allows it to operate at
significantly lower temperatures than HID fixtures and most
other legacy lighting fixtures typically found in commercial and
industrial facilities. Because of the lower operating
temperatures of our fixtures, our ballasts and lamps operate
more efficiently, allowing more electricity to be converted to
light rather than to heat or vibration, while allowing these
components to last longer before needing
13
replacement. In addition, the heat reduction provided by
installing our HIF lighting systems reduces the electricity
consumption required to cool our customers facilities,
which further reduces their electricity costs. The EPRI
estimates that commercial buildings use 5% to 10% of their
electricity consumption for cooling required to offset the heat
generated by lighting fixtures.
In addition, our patented optically-efficient reflector
increases light quantity by efficiently harvesting and focusing
emitted light. We and some of our customers have conducted tests
that generally show that our Compact Modular product line can
increase light quantity in footcandles by approximately 50% when
replacing HID fixtures. Further, we believe, based on customer
data, that our Compact Modular products provide a greater
quantity of light per watt than competing HIF fixtures. Our
optical reflector design also allows us to take advantage of
dimming ballast technologies, operating at 134 watts per
six-lamp fixture, which provides even greater energy savings and
delivers the same light output as our competitors HIF
fixtures.
The Compact Modular product line also includes our modular power
pack, which enables us to customize our customers lighting
systems to help achieve their specified lighting and energy
savings goals. Our modular power pack integrates easily into a
wide variety of electrical configurations at our customers
facilities, allowing for faster and less expensive installation
compared to lighting systems that require customized electrical
connections. In addition, our HIF lighting systems are
lightweight and, we believe, easy to handle, which further
reduces installation and maintenance costs and helps to build
brand loyalty with electrical contractors and installers.
InteLite Dynamic Control Device. Our InteLite
wireless dynamic control products allow customers to remotely
communicate with and give commands to individual light fixtures
and other peripheral devices through web-based software, and
allow the customer to configure and easily change the control
parameters of each fixture based on a number of inputs and
conditions, including
time-of-day,
motion and ambient light levels. Our InteLite products can be
added to our HIF lighting systems at or after installation on a
plug and play basis by coupling the wireless
transceivers directly to the modular power pack. Because of
their modular design, our InteLite wireless products can be
added to our energy management system easily and at lower cost
when compared to lighting systems that require similar controls
to be included at original installation or retrofitted. Recent
improvements to our InteLite products allow us to provide
reporting and metering capabilities at the individual control
unit level.
Apollo Solar Light Pipe. Our Apollo Solar
Light Pipe is a lens-based device that collects and focuses
renewable daylight, bringing natural light indoors without
consuming electricity. Our Apollo Solar Light Pipe is designed
and manufactured to maximize light collection during times of
low sun angles, such as those that occur during early morning
and late afternoon. The Apollo Solar Light Pipe produces maximum
lighting power in peak summer months and during peak
daylight hours, when electricity is most expensive. By
integrating our Apollo Solar Light Pipe with our HIF lighting
systems and InteLite wireless controls, the output and
associated electricity consumption of our HIF lighting systems
can be automatically adjusted based on the level of natural
light being provided by our Apollo Solar Light Pipe to offer
further energy savings for our customers. In certain
circumstances, our customers can illuminate their facilities
off the grid during peak hours of the day through
the use of our integrated energy management system.
Renewable Energy Projects. In fiscal 2011, we
continued the expansion of our alternative renewable energy
product and service offerings. In fiscal 2010, we began
researching three test solar photovoltaic electricity generating
projects, completing our test analysis on two of the three in
the third quarter, and executed our first cash sale and our
first Power Purchase Agreement, or PPA, as a result of the
successful testing of these systems. We completed the
installation and customer acceptance of the third system during
our fiscal 2011 first quarter. During fiscal 2011, we entered
into contracts for an additional seven renewable generating
systems, including the single largest project in our history,
with a contract value of $8.2 million.
Other Products. We also offer our customers a
variety of other HIF fixtures to address their lighting and
energy management needs, including fixtures designed for
agribusinesses, parking lots, roadways, outdoor applications,
LED freezer applications and private label resale.
Our warranty policy generally provides for a limited one-year
warranty on our products. Ballasts, lamps and other electrical
components are excluded from our standard warranty since they
are covered by a separate warranty offered by the original
equipment manufacturer. We coordinate and process customer
warranty inquiries and
14
claims, including inquiries and claims relating to ballast and
lamp components, through our customer service department.
Services
We provide, and derive revenue from, a range of fee-based
lighting-related energy management services to our customers,
including:
|
|
|
|
|
comprehensive site assessment, which includes a review of the
current lighting requirements and energy usage at the
customers facility;
|
|
|
|
site field verification, where we perform a test implementation
of our energy management system at a customers facility
upon request;
|
|
|
|
utility incentive and government subsidy management, where we
assist our customers in identifying, applying for and obtaining
available utility incentives or government subsidies;
|
|
|
|
engineering design, which involves designing a customized system
to suit our customers facility lighting and energy
management needs, and providing the customer with a written
analysis of the potential energy savings and lighting and
environmental benefits associated with the designed system;
|
|
|
|
project management, which involves our working with the
electrical contractor in overseeing and managing all phases of
implementation from delivery through installation for a single
facility or through multi-facility roll-outs tied to a defined
project schedule;
|
|
|
|
installation services, for our products, which we provide
through our national network of qualified third-party
installers; and
|
|
|
|
recycling in connection with our retrofit installations, where
we remove, dispose of and recycle our customers legacy
lighting fixtures.
|
We are also expanding our offering of other energy management
services that we believe will represent additional sources of
revenue for us in the future. Those services primarily include
review and management of electricity bills, as well as
management and control of power quality and remote monitoring
and control of our installed systems. We also sell and
distribute replacement lamps and fixture components into the
after-market.
Our
Customers
We primarily target commercial and industrial end users who have
warehousing and manufacturing facilities. As of March 31,
2011, we have installed our products in 6,807 commercial and
industrial facilities across North America. Our diversified
customer base includes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
American Standard International Inc.
|
|
Ecolab, Inc.
|
|
Newell Rubbermaid Inc.
|
|
SYSCO Corp.
|
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
|
|
Gap, Inc.
|
|
OfficeMax, Inc.
|
|
Textron, Inc.
|
Avery Dennison Corporation
|
|
General Electric Co.
|
|
PepsiAmericas Inc.
|
|
Toyota Motor Corp.
|
Big Lots Inc.
|
|
Kraft Foods Inc.
|
|
Sealed Air Corp.
|
|
United Stationers Inc.
|
Coca-Cola
Enterprises Inc.
|
|
Miller Coors LLC
|
|
Sherwin-Williams Co.
|
|
U.S. Foodservice
|
No single customer accounted for 10% or more of our total
revenue in any of our last three fiscal years.
Sales and
Marketing
We sell our products directly to commercial and industrial
customers using a systematized multi-step process that focuses
on our value proposition and provides our sales force with
specific, identified tasks that govern their interactions with
our customers from the point of lead generation through delivery
of our products and services. In fiscal 2010, we increased our
sales and marketing headcount to further develop opportunities
for our exterior lighting products within the utility and
governmental markets, expanded sales and sales support personnel
dedicated to our in-market sales programs and added technical
expertise for our wireless controls product lines. In fiscal
2011, we upgraded our Customer Relationship Management system,
or CRM, to improve the information and tracking of
15
our customer project pipeline and expanded the CRM system to
include our elite partners, providing visibility into their
project pipelines as well.
We also sell our products and services indirectly to our
customers through their electrical contractors or distributors,
or to electrical contractors and distributors who buy our
products and resell them to end users as part of an installed
project. We believe these relationships allow us to increase
penetration into the lighting retrofit market because electrical
contractors often have significant influence over their
customers lighting product selections. Even in cases where
we sell through these indirect channels, we strive to have our
own relationship with the end user customer.
We also sell our products on a wholesale basis to electrical
contractors and value-added resellers. We often train our
value-added resellers to implement our systematized sales
process to more effectively resell our products to their
customers. We attempt to leverage the customer relationships of
these electrical contractors and value-added resellers to
further extend the geographic scope of our selling efforts. In
fiscal 2010, we increased our focus on selling through our
contractor and value-added reseller channels through
participation in national trade organizations, providing
training on our sales methodologies, including the development
and distribution of standard sales partner operating procedures
and providing training to our partners to enable them to conduct
their own energy workshops with their customer and prospect
bases. We intend to focus on expanding our partner network,
selectively adding new partners in geographic regions where we
do not currently have a significant market presence.
We have historically focused our marketing efforts on
traditional direct advertising, as well as developing brand
awareness through customer education and active participation in
trade shows and energy management seminars. In fiscal 2012, we
expect to continue to selectively invest in advertising and
marketing campaigns to increase the visibility of our brand name
and raise awareness of our value proposition. In the past, these
efforts have included participating in national, regional and
local trade organizations, exhibiting at trade shows, executing
targeted direct mail campaigns, advertising in select
publications, public relations campaigns and other lead
generation and brand building initiatives. We are also actively
training contractors and partners on how to effectively
represent our product offering and have designed an intensive
classroom training program, Orion University, to complement the
energy management workshops we conduct in the field. We have
added employees focused on telemarketing to our end customers
and to generate sales leads for our internal salespeople and
partners.
Competition
The market for energy management products and services is
fragmented. We face strong competition primarily from
manufacturers and distributors of energy management products and
services as well as electrical contractors. We compete primarily
on the basis of technology, quality, customer relationships,
energy efficiency, customer service and marketing support.
There are a number of lighting fixture manufacturers that sell
HIF products that compete with our Compact Modular product line.
Some of these manufacturers also sell HID products that compete
with our HIF lighting systems, including Cooper Industries,
Ltd., Hubbell Incorporated, Ruud Lighting, Inc. and Acuity
Brands, Inc. These companies generally have large, diverse
product lines. Many of these competitors are better capitalized
than we are, have strong existing customer relationships,
greater name recognition, and more extensive engineering and
marketing capabilities. We also compete for sales of our HIF
lighting systems with manufacturers and suppliers of older
fluorescent technology in the retrofit market. Some of the
manufacturers of HIF and HID products that compete with our HIF
lighting systems sell their systems at a lower initial capital
cost than the cost at which we sell our systems, although we
believe based on our industry experience that these systems
generally do not deliver the light quality and the cost savings
that our HIF lighting systems deliver over the long-term.
Light emitting diode, or LED, technology is emerging and gaining
acceptance for certain types of lighting applications; however,
we believe the performance characteristics and relatively high
cost do not make LEDs a cost-effective alternative to HIF for
general illumination applications in the commercial and
industrial markets. We are continuing to research this
technology and have introduced LED based products designed to
achieve desired light outputs in freezer applications where the
optimal performance for LED lighting fixtures is achieved at 20
degrees below zero.
16
Many of our competitors market their manufactured lighting and
other products primarily to distributors who resell their
products for use in new commercial, residential, and industrial
construction. These distributors, such as Graybar Electric
Company, Gexpro (GE Supply) and W.W. Grainger, Inc., generally
have large customer bases and wide distribution networks and
supply to electrical contractors.
We also face competition from companies who provide energy
management services. Some of these competitors, such as Johnson
Controls, Inc. and Honeywell International, provide basic
systems and controls designed to further energy efficiency.
Other competitors provide demand response systems that compete
with our energy management systems, such as Comverge, Inc. and
EnerNOC, Inc.
Intellectual
Property
As of March 31, 2011, we had been issued 36 United States
patents, and had applied for 23 additional United States
patents. The patented and patent pending technologies include
the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Portions of our core HIF lighting technology (including our
optically efficient reflector and some of our thermally
efficient fixture I-frame constructions) are patented with
additional patents pending.
|
|
|
|
Our ballast assembly method is patent pending.
|
|
|
|
Our light pipe technology and its manufacturing methods are
patented with additional patents pending.
|
|
|
|
Our wireless lighting control system is patent pending.
|
|
|
|
The technology and methodology of our OTA financing program is
patent pending.
|
|
|
|
Our exterior lighting fixture technology is patent pending.
|
|
|
|
Our hybrid HIF and LED lighting fixture technology is patent
pending.
|
Our 36 United States patents have expiration dates ranging from
2015 to 2028, with more than half of these patents having
expiration dates of 2022 or later.
We believe that our patent portfolio as a whole is material to
our business. We also believe that our patents covering certain
component parts of our Compact Modular, including our thermally
efficient I-frame and our optically efficient reflector, are
material to our business, and that the loss of these patents
could significantly and adversely affect our business, operating
results and prospects. See Risk Factors Risks
Related to Our Business Our inability to protect our
intellectual property, or our involvement in damaging and
disruptive intellectual property litigation, could negatively
affect our business and results of operations and financial
condition or result in the loss of use of the product or
service.
Manufacturing
and Distribution
We own an approximately 266,000 square foot manufacturing
and distribution facility located in Manitowoc, Wisconsin. Since
fiscal 2005, we have made significant investments in new
equipment and in the development of our workforce to expand our
internal production capabilities and increase production
capacity. As a result of these investments, we are generally
able to manufacture and assemble our products internally. We
supplement our in-house production with outsourcing contracts as
required to meet short-term production needs. We believe we have
sufficient production capacity to support a substantial
expansion of our business.
We generally maintain a significant supply of raw material and
purchased and manufactured component inventory. We manufacture
products to order and are typically able to ship most orders
within 14 days of our receipt of a purchase order. We
contract with transportation companies to ship our products and
we manage all aspects of distribution logistics. We generally
ship our products directly to the end user.
Research
and Development
Our research and development efforts are centered on developing
new products and technologies, enhancing existing products, and
improving operational and manufacturing efficiencies. The
products, technologies and services we are developing are
focused on increasing end user energy efficiency. We are also
developing lighting
17
products based on LED technology, intelligent HVAC integration
controls, direct solar solutions and comprehensive lighting
management software. Our research and development expenditures
were $1.9 million, $1.9 million and $2.3 million
for fiscal years 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Regulation
Our operations are subject to federal, state, and local laws and
regulations governing, among other things, emissions to air,
discharge to water, the remediation of contaminated properties
and the generation, handling, storage transportation, treatment,
and disposal of, and exposure to, waste and other materials, as
well as laws and regulations relating to occupational health and
safety. We believe that our business, operations, and facilities
are being operated in compliance in all material respects with
applicable environmental and health and safety laws and
regulations.
State, county or municipal statutes often require that a
licensed electrician be present and supervise each retrofit
project. Further, all installations of electrical fixtures are
subject to compliance with electrical codes in virtually all
jurisdictions in the United States. In cases where we engage
independent contractors to perform our retrofit projects, we
believe that compliance with these laws and regulations is the
responsibility of the applicable contractor.
Our
Corporate and Other Available Information
We were incorporated as a Wisconsin corporation in April 1996
and our corporate headquarters are located at 2210 Woodland
Drive, Manitowoc, Wisconsin 54220. Our Internet website address
is www.oesx.com. Our Annual Reports on
Form 10-K,
Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q,
Current Reports on
Form 8-K
and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, are available through the
investor relations page of our internet website as soon as
reasonably practicable after we electronically file such
material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange
Commission, or the SEC.
Employees
As of March 31, 2011, we had 226 full-time and
42 part-time employees. Our employees are not represented
by any labor union, and we have never experienced a work
stoppage or strike. We consider our relations with our employees
to be good.
You should carefully consider the risk factors set forth
below and in other reports that we file from time to time with
the Securities and Exchange Commission and the other information
in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
The matters discussed in the risk factors, and additional risks
and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently
deem immaterial, could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, results of operation and future
growth prospects and could cause the trading price of our common
stock to decline.
Our
financial performance is dependent on our ability to execute on
our growth strategy.
Our fiscal 2012 operating plan and financial expectations are
predicated upon our growth strategy, and our ability to achieve
our desired growth depends on our execution in areas including
proposal development, marketing, sales training, project
management and our new telemarketing initiative, and our ability
to expand our partner network rapidly, as well as other factors.
If we are unable to successfully execute in any of these areas
or on our growth strategy as a whole, our business and financial
performance will likely be adversely affected.
18
Increasing
use of our OTA financing program could require us to seek
additional debt financing and/or equity capital and expose us to
financing risk and additional customer credit risk and impact
our financial results.
Our financing program, the Orion Throughput Agreements, or OTA,
is an installment based payment plan for our customers in
contrast to our traditional cash terms. This financing program
may subject us to additional credit risk as we do not have a
long history or experience related to longer term credit
decision making. Poor credit decisions or customer defaults
could result in increases to our allowances for doubtful
accounts
and/or
write-offs of accounts receivable and could have material
adverse effects on our results of operations and financial
condition.
These agreements and their increased use will require us to make
significant investments of capital, whether we finance them
internally or raise additional debt financing
and/or
equity capital to support the expansion. We may not be able to
obtain sufficient additional equity capital
and/or debt
financing required to expand the OTA programs or we may not be
able to obtain such additional equity capital or debt financing
on acceptable terms or conditions. Any national economic
downturn or disruption of financial markets could reduce our
access to capital necessary for these programs. The agreements
and their increased use also may subject us to additional credit
risk as we do not have a long history or experience related to
longer term credit decision making.
Our
inability to retain key employees or protect our partner network
could adversely affect our operations and our ability to execute
on our operating plan and growth strategy.
We rely upon the knowledge, experience and skills of key
employees throughout our organization, and particularly in our
sales group, that require technical knowledge or contacts in and
knowledge of the industry. We also depend on our value-added
reseller channels, including our partner network. If we are
unable to retain key employees or protect the integrity of our
partner network because of competition or, in the case of
employees, inadequate compensation or other factors, our
operations and our ability to execute our operating plan could
be adversely affected.
Adverse
conditions in the global economy and disruption of financial
markets have negatively impacted, and could continue to
negatively impact, our customers, suppliers and
business.
Financial markets in the United States, Europe and Asia have
experienced extreme disruption over the past several years,
including, among other things, extreme volatility in security
prices, severely diminished liquidity and credit availability,
rating downgrades, declines in asset valuations, inflation,
reduced consumer spending and fluctuations in foreign currency
exchange rates. While currently these conditions have not
impaired our ability to finance our operations, such conditions
coupled with recessionary type economic conditions, have
adversely affected our customers capital budgets,
purchasing decisions and facilities managers and, therefore,
have adversely affected our results of operations. In addition,
some of our installer base of contractors have stopped doing
business due to the challenging economic conditions, which has
increased the cost and delayed the timing of installation of our
products and thereby negatively impact our business and results
of operations. Our business and results of operations will
continue to be adversely affected to the extent these adverse
financial market and general economic conditions continue to
adversely affect our customers purchasing decisions and
the availability of installers.
Adverse
market conditions have led to increasing duration of customer
sales cycles, limitations on customer capital budgets, closure
of facilities and the loss of key contacts due to workforce
reductions at existing and prospective customers.
The volatility and uncertainty in the financial and credit
markets has led many customers to adopt strategies for
conserving cash, including limits on capital spending and
expense reductions. Our HIF lighting systems are often purchased
as capital assets and therefore are subject to capital
availability. Uncertainty around such availability has led
customers to delay purchase decisions, which has elongated the
duration of our sales cycles. Along with limiting capital
spending, some customers have reduced expenses by closing
facilities and reducing workforces. As a result, facilities that
were or may be considering installing our HIF lighting systems
have closed or may close. Due to downsizings, key contacts and
decision-makers at customers have lost or may lose their jobs,
which requires us to re-initiate the sales cycle with other
personnel, further elongating the sales cycle. We have
experienced, and may in
19
the future experience, variability in our operating results, on
both an annual and a quarterly basis, as a result of these
factors.
Our
renewable energy technologies involve many risks and
uncertainties. Many new technologies do not become commercially
profitable products, applications or services despite extensive
development and commercialization efforts.
In fiscal 2011, we continued the expansion that began in fiscal
2010 of our product and service offerings by providing our
customers with alternative renewable energy systems, such as
photovoltaic solar systems and wind energy systems through our
Orion Engineered Systems division. This division continues to
conduct research on various additional renewable energy
technologies that we may be able to add to our menu of products,
applications and services offered, making recommendations to our
senior management regarding the technologies viability and
developing commercialization tactics.
The process of developing and commercializing new products,
applications and services, particularly relating to alternative
renewable energy systems, is typically both time-consuming and
costly and usually involves a high degree of business risk. We
may be unable to successfully develop or commercialize new
technologies in the form of new products, applications or
services. This process may involve substantial expenditures in
research and development, sourcing and marketing.
Commercialization of new technological products, applications
and services often requires a very long lead time. Because it is
generally not possible to predict the amount of time required or
the costs involved in achieving new product, application or
service introduction objectives, actual development and
commercialization costs may exceed budgeted amounts and
estimated development and commercialization schedules may be
extended. Developing new technological products, applications
and services, and creating effective commercialization
strategies for new renewable energy technologies, are subject to
inherent risks that may include:
|
|
|
|
|
Unanticipated
and/or
substantial delays;
|
|
|
|
Unanticipated
and/or
substantially increased costs;
|
|
|
|
Unrecoverable
and/or
substantially increased expenses;
|
|
|
|
Technical, reliability, durability or quality problems,
including potential warranty
and/or
product liability claims;
|
|
|
|
Insufficiency of dedicated or budgeted funds;
|
|
|
|
Inability to meet targeted cost or performance objectives;
|
|
|
|
Inability to satisfy industry standards or consumer expectations
and needs;
|
|
|
|
Regulatory obstacles;
|
|
|
|
Competition;
|
|
|
|
Inability to prove the original concept;
|
|
|
|
Lack of demand; and
|
|
|
|
Diversion of our managements and employees focus
and/or
attention.
|
The occurrence of any one or more of these risks could cause us
to incur substantial costs and expenses or even to abandon or
substantially delay or change our strategy of exploring the
addition of new alternative renewable energy technologies into
our product, application and service offerings.
Orion
Engineered Systems may not be able to identify suitable new
technologies, we may invest too much in new technologies, our
management could be distracted by new technologies and we could
fail to develop any new products, applications or services
successfully.
Identifying suitable new alternative renewable energy
technologies for addition into our product, application and
service offerings may be difficult, and the failure to do so
could harm our growth strategy. If we make an
20
investment in one or more new alternative renewable energy
technologies, then we could have difficulty developing and
commercializing it or integrating it into our product,
application or service offerings. These difficulties could
disrupt our ongoing business, distract our management and
employees and increase our expenses
and/or
capital expenditures. As a result, our failure to fully develop
and commercialize potential new alternative renewable energy
technologies or to integrate them effectively into our product,
application and service offerings properly could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition and
operating results.
We may
not be able to obtain additional equity capital or debt
financing necessary to effectively introduce and commercialize
any new alternative renewable energy technologies identified by
Orion Engineered Systems into our product, application and
service offerings.
Our existing capital resources may not be sufficient to
effectively introduce and commercialize any new alternative
renewable energy technologies identified by Orion Engineered
Systems into our product, application and service offerings. We
may not be able to obtain sufficient additional equity capital
and/or debt
financing required to do so or we may not be able to obtain such
additional equity capital or debt financing on acceptable terms
or conditions. Factors affecting the availability to us of
equity capital or debt financing on acceptable terms and
conditions include:
|
|
|
|
|
The price, volatility and trading volume and history of our
common stock.
|
|
|
|
Our current and future financial results and position.
|
|
|
|
The markets view of our industry and products.
|
|
|
|
The perception in the equity and debt markets of our ability to
execute our business plan or achieve our operating results
expectations.
|
We
have no significant operating history in the solar photovoltaic
or wind energy industries that can be used to evaluate our
potential prospects for success in these
industries.
In fiscal 2011, we continued the expansion begun in fiscal 2010
of our product and service offerings by providing our customers
with alternative renewable energy systems, such as photovoltaic
solar systems and, potentially, wind energy systems through our
Orion Engineered Systems division. In fiscal 2010, we sold and
installed three solar photovoltaic electricity generating
projects, completing our test analysis on two of the three in
the fiscal 2010 third quarter, and executed our first cash sale
and our first PPA as a result of the successful testing of these
systems. In fiscal 2011, we entered into contracts for an
additional seven photovoltaic electricity generating projects.
Our Orion Engineered Systems division continues to conduct
research on various other renewable energy technologies that we
may be able to add to our menu of products, applications and
services offered.
We have no significant history or experience in the solar
photovoltaic or wind energy industries. If we continue to
further pursue adding these technologies into our product,
application or service offerings, there can be no assurance that
our venture into these industries will prove successful. We have
no significant history or experience in developing or
commercializing solar photovoltaic or wind energy technologies
that can be used to evaluate our potential prospects for
success. As a result, our prospects for success in being able to
introduce new products, applications or services using these
technologies must be considered in the context of a new company
in a developing industry. The risks we face include the
possibility that we will not be successful in developing or
commercializing any such technologies, that we will not be able
to do so without incurring unexpected
and/or
substantial costs and expenses
and/or
failing to generate any substantial incremental revenues, that
we will not be able to rely on third-party manufacturers or
providers of such technologies, and that we will not be able to
operate successfully in the competitive environment of the solar
photovoltaic
and/or wind
energy industries. If we are unable to address all of these
risks, our business, results of operations and financial
condition may be materially adversely affected.
21
Orion
Engineered Systems pursuit of solar photovoltaic and/or
wind electricity generating technologies is subject to risks
specific to the solar photovoltaic and/or wind
industry.
If we continue to expand our offerings of solar photovoltaic
electricity generating technologies
and/or wind
electricity generating technologies into our product,
application or service offerings, such business pursuits will
involve risks specifically associated with the solar
photovoltaic
and/or wind
industry, including:
|
|
|
|
|
The market for photovoltaic and wind electricity generating
technologies has been adversely affected by the recessionary
economic conditions, and we cannot guarantee that demand will
return or increase in the future.
|
|
|
|
A variety of solar power, wind power and other renewable energy
technologies may be currently under development by other
companies that could result in higher or more effective product
performance than the performance expected to be produced by any
technology that we decide to offer.
|
|
|
|
Our ability to generate revenue and profitability from adding
solar photovoltaic
and/or wind
electricity generating technologies into our product,
application or service offerings is dependent on consumer
acceptance and the economic feasibility of solar
and/or wind
generated energy.
|
|
|
|
A drop in the retail price of conventional energy or other
alternate renewable energy sources may negatively impact our
ability to generate revenue and profitability from solar
photovoltaic
and/or wind
generated energy technologies.
|
|
|
|
The reduction, elimination or expiration of government mandates
and subsidies or economic or tax rebates, credits
and/or
incentives for alternative renewable energy systems would likely
substantially reduce the demand for, and economic feasibility
of, any solar photovoltaic
and/or wind
electricity generating products, applications or services and
could materially reduce any prospects for our successfully
introducing any new products, applications or services using
such technologies.
|
We
operate in a highly competitive industry and if we are unable to
compete successfully our revenue and profitability will be
adversely affected.
We face strong competition primarily from manufacturers and
distributors of energy management products and services, as well
as from electrical contractors. We compete primarily on the
basis of customer relationships, price, quality, energy
efficiency, customer service and marketing support. Our products
are in direct competition primarily with high intensity
discharge, or HID, technology, as well as LED, other HIF
products and older fluorescent technology in the lighting
systems retrofit market.
Many of our competitors are better capitalized than we are, have
strong existing customer relationships, greater name
recognition, and more extensive engineering, manufacturing,
sales and marketing capabilities. Competitors could focus their
substantial resources on developing a competing business model
or energy management products or services that may be
potentially more attractive to customers than our products or
services. In addition, we may face competition from other
products or technologies that reduce demand for electricity. Our
competitors may also offer energy management products and
services at reduced prices in order to improve their competitive
positions. Any of these competitive factors could make it more
difficult for us to attract and retain customers, require us to
lower our prices in order to remain competitive, and reduce our
revenue and profitability, any of which could have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations and financial
condition.
Our
success is largely dependent upon the skills, experience and
efforts of our senior management, and the loss of their services
could have a material adverse effect on our ability to expand
our business or to maintain profitable operations.
Our continued success depends upon the continued availability,
contributions, skills, experience and effort of our senior
management. We are particularly dependent on the services of
Neal R. Verfuerth, our chief executive officer and principal
founder, Michael J. Potts, our president and chief operating
officer and John Scribante, our president of Orion Engineered
Systems. Messrs. Verfuerth, Potts and Scribante have major
responsibilities with respect to sales, engineering, product
development, operations and executive administration. We do not
have a formal succession plan in place for
Messrs. Verfuerth, Potts and Scribante. Our current
employment agreements
22
with Messrs. Verfuerth, Potts and Scribante do not
guarantee their respective services for a specified period of
time. All of the current employment agreements with our senior
management team may be terminated by the employee at any time
and without notice. While all such agreements include
noncompetition and confidentiality covenants, there can be no
assurance that such provisions will be enforceable or adequately
protect us. The loss of the services of either of these persons
might impede our operations or the achievement of our strategic
and financial objectives, and we may not be able to attract and
retain individuals with the same or similar level of experience
or expertise. Additionally, while we have key man insurance on
the lives of Messrs. Verfuerth and Potts and other members
of our senior management team, such insurance may not adequately
compensate us for the loss of these individuals. The loss or
interruption of the service of members of our senior management,
particularly Messrs. Verfuerth, Potts or Scribante, or our
inability to attract or retain other qualified personnel could
have a material adverse effect on our ability to expand our
business, implement our strategy or achieve profitable
operations.
The
success of our business depends on the market acceptance of our
energy management products and services.
Our future success depends on continued commercial acceptance of
our energy management products and services. If we are unable to
convince current and potential customers of the advantages of
our HIF lighting systems and energy management products and
services, then our ability to sell our HIF lighting systems and
energy management products and services will be limited. In
addition, because the market for energy management products and
services is rapidly evolving, we may not be able to accurately
assess the size of the market, and we may have limited insight
into trends that may emerge and affect our business. If the
market for our HIF lighting systems and energy management
products and services does not continue to develop, or if the
market does not accept our products, then our ability to grow
our business could be limited and we may not be able to increase
our revenue or achieve profitability.
Our
products use components and raw materials that may be subject to
price fluctuations, shortages or interruptions of
supply.
We may be vulnerable to price increases for components or raw
materials that we require for our products, including aluminum,
ballasts, power supplies and lamps. In particular, our cost of
aluminum can be subject to commodity price fluctuation. Further,
suppliers inventories of certain components that our
products require may be limited and are subject to acquisition
by others. We have had to purchase quantities of certain
components that are critical to our product manufacturing and
were in excess of our estimated near-term requirements as a
result of supplier delivery constraints and concerns over
component availability, and we may need to do so in the future.
As a result, we have had, and may need to continue, to devote
additional working capital to support a large amount of
component and raw material inventory that may not be used over a
reasonable period to produce saleable products, and we may be
required to increase our excess and obsolete inventory reserves
to provide for these excess quantities, particularly if demand
for our products does not meet our expectations. Also, any
shortages or interruptions in supply of our components or raw
materials could disrupt our operations. If any of these events
occurs, our results of operations and financial condition could
be materially adversely affected.
We
have made a significant investment in inventory related to our
wireless controls product offering, which is costly and, if not
properly managed, may result in an inability to provide our
products on a timely basis or in unforeseen valuation
adjustments.
Our wireless control inventories were approximately 50% of our
total March 31, 2011 inventory balance. The components for
our wireless inventories are manufactured and assembled
overseas, require longer delivery lead times, suppliers require
deposit payments at time of purchase order and suppliers also
require volume commitments to secure production capacity. We
maintain this significant investment in our wireless controls
inventory in order to provide prompt and complete service to our
customers. There can be no guarantees that our customers will
purchase our wireless technologies or that unforeseen evolutions
in technologies may render our inventories unsalable and require
a valuation adjustment to our inventories. Additionally, price
changes or other circumstances could result in unforeseen
valuation adjustments to inventories. Such occurrences could
have a negative effect on our results of operations and
financial condition.
23
We
depend on a limited number of key suppliers.
We depend on certain key suppliers for the raw materials and key
components that we require for our current products, including
sheet, coiled and specialty reflective aluminum, power supplies,
ballasts and lamps. In particular, we buy most of our specialty
reflective aluminum from a single supplier and we also purchase
most of our ballast and lamp components from a single supplier.
Purchases of components from our current primary ballast and
lamp supplier constituted 26% and 34% of our total cost of
revenue in fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011, respectively. If these
components become unavailable, or our relationships with
suppliers become strained, particularly as relates to our
primary suppliers, our results of operations and financial
condition could be materially adversely affected.
We
experienced component quality problems related to certain
suppliers in the past, and our current suppliers may not deliver
satisfactory components in the future.
In fiscal 2003 through fiscal 2005, we experienced higher than
normal failure rates with certain components purchased from two
suppliers. These quality issues led to an increase in warranty
claims from our customers and we recorded warranty expenses of
approximately $0.1 million and $0.7 million in fiscal
2005 and fiscal 2006, respectively. We may experience quality
problems with suppliers in the future, which could decrease our
gross margin and profitability, lengthen our sales cycles,
adversely affect our customer relations and future sales
prospects and subject our business to negative publicity.
Additionally, we sometimes satisfy warranty claims even if they
are not covered by our general warranty policy as a customer
accommodation. If we were to experience quality problems with
the ballasts or lamps purchased from our primary ballast and
lamp supplier, these adverse consequences could be magnified,
and our results of operations and financial condition could be
materially adversely affected.
We
depend upon a limited number of customers in any given period to
generate a substantial portion of our revenue.
We do not have long-term contracts with our customers, and our
dependence on individual key customers can vary from period to
period as a result of the significant size of some of our
retrofit and multi-facility roll-out projects. Our top 10
customers accounted for approximately 29% and 38%, respectively,
of our total revenue for fiscal 2010 and 2011. In fiscal 2010
and fiscal 2011, our top customer accounted for less than 6% and
7% of our total revenues, respectively. We expect large retrofit
and roll-out projects to continue to be a significant component
of our total revenue. As a result, we may experience more
customer concentration in any given future period. The loss of,
or substantial reduction in sales to, any of our significant
customers could have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations in any given future period.
Product
liability claims could adversely affect our business, results of
operations and financial condition.
We face exposure to product liability claims in the event that
our energy management products fail to perform as expected or
cause bodily injury or property damage. Since the majority of
our products use electricity, it is possible that our products
could result in injury, whether by product malfunctions,
defects, improper installation or other causes. Particularly
because our products often incorporate new technologies or
designs, we cannot predict whether or not product liability
claims will be brought against us in the future or result in
negative publicity about our business or adversely affect our
customer relations. Moreover, we may not have adequate resources
in the event of a successful claim against us. A successful
product liability claim against us that is not covered by
insurance or is in excess of our available insurance limits
could require us to make significant payments of damages and
could materially adversely affect our results of operations and
financial condition.
We
depend on our ability to develop new products and
services.
The market for our products and services is characterized by
rapid market and technological changes, uncertain product life
cycles, changes in customer demands and evolving government,
industry and utility standards and regulations. As a result, our
future success will depend, in part, on our ability to continue
to design and manufacture new products and services. We may not
be able to successfully develop and market new products or
24
services that keep pace with technological or industry changes,
satisfy changes in customer demands or comply with present or
emerging government and industry regulations and technology
standards.
We may
pursue acquisitions and investments in new product lines,
businesses or technologies that involve numerous risks, which
could disrupt our business or adversely affect our financial
condition and results of operations.
In the future, we may pursue acquisitions of, or investments in,
new product lines, businesses or technologies to expand our
current capabilities. We have limited experience in making such
acquisitions or investments. Acquisitions present a number of
potential risks and challenges that could disrupt our business
operations, increase our operating costs or capital expenditure
requirements and reduce the value of the acquired product line,
business or technology. For example, if we identify an
acquisition candidate, we may not be able to successfully
negotiate or finance the acquisition on favorable terms. The
process of negotiating acquisitions and integrating acquired
products, services, technologies, personnel, or businesses might
result in significant transaction costs, operating difficulties
or unexpected expenditures, and might require significant
management attention that would otherwise be available for
ongoing development of our business. If we are successful in
consummating an acquisition, we may not be able to integrate the
acquired product line, business or technology into our existing
business and products, and we may not achieve the anticipated
benefits of any acquisition. Furthermore, potential acquisitions
and investments may divert our managements attention,
require considerable cash outlays and require substantial
additional expenses that could harm our existing operations and
adversely affect our results of operations and financial
condition. To complete future acquisitions, we may issue equity
securities, incur debt, assume contingent liabilities or incur
amortization expenses and write-downs of acquired assets, which
could dilute the interests of our shareholders or adversely
affect our profitability.
Our
inability to protect our intellectual property, or our
involvement in damaging and disruptive intellectual property
litigation, could adversely affect our business, results of
operations and financial condition or result in the loss of use
of the product or service.
We attempt to protect our intellectual property rights through a
combination of patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret
laws, as well as employee and third-party nondisclosure and
assignment agreements. Our failure to obtain or maintain
adequate protection of our intellectual property rights for any
reason could have a material adverse effect on our business,
results of operations and financial condition.
We own United States patents and patent applications for some of
our products, systems, business methods and technologies. We
offer no assurance about the degree of protection which existing
or future patents may afford us. Likewise, we offer no assurance
that our patent applications will result in issued patents, that
our patents will be upheld if challenged, that competitors will
not develop similar or superior business methods or products
outside the protection of our patents, that competitors will not
infringe our patents, or that we will have adequate resources to
enforce our patents. Effective protection of our United States
patents may be unavailable or limited in jurisdictions outside
the United States, as the intellectual property laws of foreign
countries sometimes offer less protection or have onerous filing
requirements. In addition, because some patent applications are
maintained in secrecy for a period of time, we could adopt a
technology without knowledge of a pending patent application,
and such technology could infringe a third partys patent.
We also rely on unpatented proprietary technology. It is
possible that others will independently develop the same or
similar technology or otherwise learn of our unpatented
technology. To protect our trade secrets and other proprietary
information, we generally require employees, consultants,
advisors and collaborators to enter into confidentiality
agreements. We cannot assure you that these agreements will
provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets, know-how or
other proprietary information in the event of any unauthorized
use, misappropriation or disclosure of such trade secrets,
know-how or other proprietary information. If we are unable to
maintain the proprietary nature of our technologies, our
business could be materially adversely affected.
We rely on our trademarks, trade names, and brand names to
distinguish our company and our products and services from our
competitors. Some of our trademarks may conflict with trademarks
of other companies. Failure to obtain trademark registrations
could limit our ability to protect our trademarks and impede our
sales and marketing
25
efforts. Further, we cannot assure you that competitors will not
infringe our trademarks, or that we will have adequate resources
to enforce our trademarks.
In addition, third parties may bring infringement and other
claims that could be time-consuming and expensive to defend. In
addition, parties making infringement and other claims may be
able to obtain injunctive or other equitable relief that could
effectively block our ability to provide our products, services
or business methods and could cause us to pay substantial
damages. In the event of a successful claim of infringement, we
may need to obtain one or more licenses from third parties,
which may not be available at a reasonable cost, or at all. It
is possible that our intellectual property rights may not be
valid or that we may infringe existing or future proprietary
rights of others. Any successful infringement claims could
subject us to significant liabilities, require us to seek
licenses on unfavorable terms, prevent us from manufacturing or
selling products, services and business methods and require us
to redesign or, in the case of trademark claims, re-brand our
company or products, any of which could have a material adverse
effect on our business, results of operations or financial
condition.
We may
face additional competition if government subsidies and utility
incentives for renewable energy increase or if such sources of
energy are mandated.
Many states and the federal government have adopted a variety of
government subsidies and utility incentives to allow renewable
energy sources, such as biofuels, wind and solar energy, to
compete with currently less expensive conventional sources of
energy, such as fossil fuels. We may face additional competition
from providers of renewable energy sources if government
subsidies and utility incentives for those sources of energy
increase or if such sources of energy are mandated.
Additionally, the availability of subsidies and other incentives
from utilities or government agencies to install alternative
renewable energy sources may negatively impact our
customers desire to purchase our products and services, or
may be utilized by our existing or new competitors to develop a
competing business model or products or services that may be
potentially more attractive to customers than ours, any of which
could have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations or financial condition.
If our
information technology systems fail, or if we experience an
interruption in their operation, then our business, results of
operations and financial condition could be materially adversely
affected.
The efficient operation of our business is dependent on our
information technology systems. We rely on those systems
generally to manage the
day-to-day
operation of our business, manage relationships with our
customers, maintain our research and development data and
maintain our financial and accounting records. We recently
replaced our then-existing enterprise resource planning, or ERP,
system. Our ERP implementation project has consumed, and may
continue to consume, significant business resources, including
personnel and financial resources, and is not yet fully
complete. The failure of our information technology systems, our
inability to successfully maintain, enhance
and/or
replace our information technology systems, or any compromise of
the integrity or security of the data we generate from our
information technology systems, could adversely affect our
results of operations, disrupt our business and product
development and make us unable, or severely limit our ability,
to respond to customer demands. In addition, our information
technology systems are vulnerable to damage or interruption from:
|
|
|
|
|
earthquake, fire, flood and other natural disasters;
|
|
|
|
employee or other theft;
|
|
|
|
attacks by computer viruses or hackers;
|
|
|
|
power outages; and
|
|
|
|
computer systems, internet, telecommunications or data network
failure.
|
Any interruption of our information technology systems could
result in decreased revenue, increased expenses, increased
capital expenditures, customer dissatisfaction and potential
lawsuits, any of which could have a material adverse effect on
our results of operations or financial condition.
26
We own
and operate an industrial property that we purchased in 2004
and, if any environmental contamination is discovered, we could
be responsible for remediation of the property.
We own our manufacturing and distribution facility located at an
industrial site. We purchased this property from an adjacent
aluminum rolling mill and cookware manufacturing facility in
2004. The company that previously owned this facility has
subsequently become insolvent and the facility was sold at a
foreclosure sale to a new owner. Accordingly, if environmental
contamination is discovered at our facility and we are required
to remediate the property, we would likely have no effective
recourse against the prior owners. Any such potential
remediation could be costly and could adversely affect our
results of operations or financial condition.
The
cost of compliance with environmental laws and regulations and
any related environmental liabilities could adversely affect our
results of operations or financial condition.
Our operations are subject to federal, state and local laws and
regulations governing, among other things, emissions to air,
discharge to water, the remediation of contaminated properties
and the generation, handling, storage, transportation, treatment
and disposal of, and exposure to, waste and other materials, as
well as laws and regulations relating to occupational health and
safety. These laws and regulations frequently change, and the
violation of these laws or regulations can lead to substantial
fines, penalties and other liabilities. The operation of our
manufacturing facility entails risks in these areas and there
can be no assurance that we will not incur material costs or
liabilities in the future which could adversely affect our
results of operations or financial condition.
Our
retrofitting process frequently involves responsibility for the
removal and disposal of components containing hazardous
materials.
When we retrofit a customers facility, we typically assume
responsibility for removing and disposing of its existing
lighting fixtures. Certain components of these fixtures
typically contain trace amounts of mercury and other hazardous
materials. Older components may also contain trace amounts of
polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. We currently rely on
contractors to remove the components containing such hazardous
materials at the customer job site. The contractors then arrange
for the disposal of such components at a licensed disposal
facility. Failure by such contractors to remove or dispose of
the components containing these hazardous materials in a safe,
effective and lawful manner could give rise to liability for us,
or could expose our workers or other persons to these hazardous
materials, which could result in claims against us.
We
expect our quarterly revenue and operating results to fluctuate.
If we fail to meet the expectations of market analysts or
investors, the market price of our common stock could decline
substantially, and we could become subject to additional
securities litigation.
Our quarterly revenue and operating results have fluctuated in
the past and will likely vary from quarter to quarter in the
future. For example, our first fiscal quarter typically reflects
operating results that do not compare favorably with our other
fiscal quarters. You should not rely upon the results of one
quarter as an indication of our future performance. Our revenue
and operating results may fall below the expectations of market
analysts or investors in some future quarter or quarters. Our
failure to meet these expectations could cause the market price
of our common stock to decline substantially. If the price of
our common stock is volatile or falls significantly below our
current price, we may be the target of additional securities
litigation. If we become involved in this type of litigation,
regardless of the outcome, we could incur substantial legal
costs, managements attention could be diverted from the
operation of our business, and our reputation could be damaged,
which could adversely affect our business, results of operations
or financial condition.
Our
net operating loss carryforwards may be subject to limitation
and may be subject to a valuation adjustment if we do not
maintain our profitability.
As of March 31, 2011, we had aggregate federal net
operating loss carryforwards of approximately $8.1 million
and state net operating loss carryforwards of approximately
$4.8 million. Generally, a change of more than 50% in the
ownership of a companys stock, by value, over a three-year
period constitutes an ownership change for federal income tax
purposes. An ownership change may limit a companys ability
to use its net operating loss carryforwards
27
attributable to the period prior to such change. We believe that
past issuances and transfers of our stock caused an ownership
change in fiscal 2007 that may affect the timing of the use of
our net operating loss carryforwards, but we do not believe the
ownership change affects the use of the full amount of our net
operating loss carryforwards. As a result, our ability to use
our net operating loss carryforwards attributable to the period
prior to such ownership change to offset taxable income will be
subject to limitations in a particular year, which could
potentially result in increased future tax liability for us. In
fiscal 2008, utilization of our net operating loss carryforwards
was limited to $3.0 million. For fiscal 2009, 2010 and
2011, utilization of our net operating loss carryforwards was
not limited. In addition to any limitations imposed by a past
ownership change, if we fail to maintain our recent
profitability, our net operating loss carryforwards and related
deferred tax assets may be subject to a valuation adjustment.
The
restatement of our historical financial statements has already
consumed, and may continue to consume, a significant amount of
our time and resources and may have a material adverse effect on
our business and stock price.
As described earlier, we have restated our consolidated
financial statements for fiscal 2010 and our first three
quarters of fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011. The restatement process
was highly time and resource-intensive and involved substantial
attention from management and significant legal and accounting
costs. Furthermore, we cannot guarantee that we will have no
inquiries from the SEC or the NYSE Amex regarding our restated
financial statements or matters relating thereto. Any future
inquiries from the SEC as a result of the restatement of our
historical financial statements will, regardless of the outcome,
likely consume a significant amount of our resources in addition
to those resources already consumed in connection with the
restatement itself. Further, many companies that have been
required to restate their historical financial statements have
experienced a decline in stock price and shareholder lawsuits
related thereto.
We
were unable to timely file this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
as required by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and our
continued inability to file these reports on time could result
in investors not having access to important information about us
and the delisting of our common stock from the NYSE Amex
LLC.
Due to the complexities and complications associated with the
restatement of our financial statements, we were late in filing
this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
As a result, we were not in compliance with the continued
listing requirements of the NYSE Amex LLC Company Guide and with
the applicable SEC rules under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended. We are required to comply with these rules as
a condition to listing on the NYSE Amex LLC. Furthermore, the
late filing has resulted in our inability to utilize a
short-form registration statement on SEC
Form S-3
for a period of twelve months.
Although we have been timely with our other quarterly and annual
reports, there can be no assurance that we will be able to
timely file such reports in the future. If we are unable to
timely file all reports in the future, you may not receive
information from us in a timely manner. In addition, our common
stock could be delisted from the NYSE Amex LLC. Such events
would negatively impact the price of our common stock and, if we
are delisted, the liquidity of such stock.
If
securities or industry analysts do not publish research or
publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business,
our stock price and trading volume could decline.
The trading market for our common stock will continue to depend
in part on the research and reports that securities or industry
analysts publish about us or our business. If these analysts do
not continue to provide adequate research coverage or if one or
more of the analysts who covers us downgrades our stock or
publishes inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business,
our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these
analysts ceases coverage of our company or fails to publish
reports on us regularly, demand for our stock could decrease,
which could cause our stock price and trading volume to decline.
28
The
market price of our common stock could be adversely affected by
future sales of our common stock in the public market by our
executive officers and directors.
Our executive officers and directors may from time to time sell
shares of our common stock in the public market or otherwise. We
cannot predict the size or the effect, if any, that future sales
of shares of our common stock by our executive officers and
directors, or the perception of such sales, would have on the
market price of our common stock.
Anti-takeover
provisions included in the Wisconsin Business Corporation Law,
provisions in our amended and restated articles of incorporation
or bylaws and the common share purchase rights that accompany
shares of our common stock could delay or prevent a change of
control of our company, which could adversely impact the value
of our common stock and may prevent or frustrate attempts by our
shareholders to replace or remove our current board of directors
or management.
A change of control of our company may be discouraged, delayed
or prevented by certain provisions of the Wisconsin Business
Corporation Law. These provisions generally restrict a broad
range of business combinations between a Wisconsin corporation
and a shareholder owning 15% or more of our outstanding voting
stock. These and other provisions in our amended and restated
articles of incorporation, including our staggered board of
directors and our ability to issue blank check
preferred stock, as well as the provisions of our amended and
restated bylaws and Wisconsin law, could make it more difficult
for shareholders or potential acquirers to obtain control of our
board of directors or initiate actions that are opposed by the
then-current board of directors, including to delay or impede a
merger, tender offer or proxy contest involving our company.
Each currently outstanding share of our common stock includes,
and each newly issued share of our common stock will include, a
common share purchase right. The rights are attached to and
trade with the shares of common stock and generally are not
exercisable. The rights will become exercisable if a person or
group acquires, or announces an intention to acquire, 20% or
more of our outstanding common stock. The rights have some
anti-takeover effects and generally will cause substantial
dilution to a person or group that attempts to acquire control
of us without conditioning the offer on either redemption of the
rights or amendment of the rights to prevent this dilution. The
rights could have the effect of delaying, deferring or
preventing a change of control.
In addition, our employment arrangements with senior management
provide for severance payments and accelerated vesting of
benefits, including accelerated vesting of stock options, upon a
change of control. These provisions could limit the price that
investors might be willing to pay in the future for shares of
our common stock, thereby adversely affecting the market price
of our common stock. These provisions may also discourage or
prevent a change of control or result in a lower price per share
paid to our shareholders.
We may
fail to comply with the financial and operating covenants in our
credit agreement, which could result in our being unable to
borrow under the agreement and other negative
consequences.
Our credit agreement with JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., contains
certain financial covenants including minimum net income
requirements and requirements that we maintain net worth ratios
at prescribed levels. The credit agreement also contains certain
restrictions on our ability to make capital or lease
expenditures over prescribed limits, incur additional
indebtedness, consolidate or merge, guarantee obligations of
third parties, make loans or advances, declare or pay any
dividend or distribution on our stock, redeem or repurchase
shares of our stock, or pledge assets. The credit agreement also
contains other customary covenants. As of March 31, 2011,
we had no borrowings outstanding under the credit agreement.
There can be no assurance that we will be able to comply with
the financial and other covenants in the credit agreement. Our
failure to comply with these covenants could cause us to be
unable to borrow under the agreement and may constitute an event
of default which, if not cured or waived, could result in the
acceleration of the maturity of any indebtedness then
outstanding under the agreement, which would require us to pay
all amounts outstanding. Due to our cash and cash equivalent
position and the fact that we have no borrowings currently
outstanding, we do not currently anticipate that our failure to
comply with the covenants under the credit agreement would have
a significant impact on our ability to meet our financial
obligations in the near term. Our failure to comply with such
29
covenants, however, would be a disclosable event and may be
perceived negatively. Such perception could adversely affect the
market price for our common stock and our ability to obtain
financing in the future.
|
|
ITEM 1B.
|
UNRESOLVED
STAFF COMMENTS
|
On March 23, 2011, we received a comment letter from the
staff of the Division of Corporation Finance of the Securities
and Exchange Commission. The comments from the staff were issued
with respect to its review of our
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 and the
Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2010. In
addition to other comments, the staffs letter included
comments relating to our determination of the depreciation
period for the equipment under both our OTA and PPA agreements,
the nature of the arrangements with a financing company under
which we have sold OTA agreements and the accounting treatment
thereof.
We responded to all of the staffs comments in a letter
dated April 4, 2011, and the staff replied with additional
comments on the topics described above. We responded to all of
the additional comments on May 13, 2011. As of the date of
the filing of this
Form 10-K,
the staff continues to review our latest responses and,
therefore, these comments remain unresolved.
We own our approximately 266,000 square foot manufacturing
and distribution facility in Manitowoc, Wisconsin. We own our
approximately 70,000 square foot technology center and
corporate headquarters adjacent to our Manitowoc manufacturing
and distribution facility. We own our approximately
23,000 square foot sales and operations support facility in
Plymouth, Wisconsin. Our Plymouth facility is used by our Orion
Engineered Systems segment.
|
|
ITEM 3.
|
LEGAL
PROCEEDINGS
|
We are subject to various claims and legal proceedings arising
in the ordinary course of our business. In addition to
ordinary-course litigation, we are a party to the litigation
described below.
In February and March 2008, three class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against us, several of our officers, all
members of our then existing board of directors, and certain
underwriters relating to our December 2007 initial public
offering, or IPO. The plaintiffs claimed to represent those
persons who purchased shares of our common stock from
December 18, 2007 through February 6, 2008. The
plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that we and the other
defendants made misstatements and failed to disclose material
information in our IPO registration statement and prospectus.
The complaints alleged various claims under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended. The complaints sought, among other relief,
class certification, unspecified damages, fees and such other
relief as the court may deem just and proper.
On August 1, 2008, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed
a consolidated amended complaint in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. On
September 15, 2008, we and the other director and officer
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint,
and the underwriters filed a separate motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on January 16, 2009. After oral
argument on August 19, 2009, the court granted in part and
denied in part the motions to dismiss. The plaintiff filed a
second consolidated amended complaint on September 4, 2009,
and we and the other defendants filed an answer to the complaint
on October 9, 2009.
In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010, we reached a preliminary
agreement to settle the class action lawsuits and on
January 3, 2011, the court issued an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement. After a fairness hearing
on April 14, 2011, the court approved the settlement in a
final judgment and order. No shareholder appeared at the hearing
to object. Accordingly, the case has concluded. Of the final
settlement amount of $3.25 million, we contributed
$0.49 million and our insurer contributed
$2.76 million.
30
|
|
ITEM 4.
|
REMOVED
AND RESERVED
|
|
|
ITEM 5.
|
MARKET
FOR REGISTRANTS COMMON EQUITY, RELATED SHAREHOLDER MATTERS
AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
|
Price
Range of our Common Stock
Our common stock has been listed on the NYSE Amex under the
symbol OESX since April 6, 2010. Prior to
April 6, 2010, our common stock had been listed on The
NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol OESX. The
following table sets forth the range of high and low sales
prices per share as reported on the exchange on which our common
stock was then listed for the periods indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High
|
|
Low
|
|
Fiscal 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
$
|
4.66
|
|
|
$
|
3.25
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
$
|
3.92
|
|
|
$
|
2.68
|
|
Third Quarter
|
|
$
|
4.76
|
|
|
$
|
3.05
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
$
|
6.35
|
|
|
$
|
4.37
|
|
Fiscal 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
$
|
5.43
|
|
|
$
|
2.84
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
$
|
3.43
|
|
|
$
|
2.10
|
|
Third Quarter
|
|
$
|
4.14
|
|
|
$
|
3.11
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
$
|
4.94
|
|
|
$
|
3.21
|
|
Shareholders
The closing sales price of our common stock on the NYSE Amex as
of July 14, 2011 was $3.98. As of July 14, 2011, there
were approximately 240 record holders of the 22,974,498
outstanding shares of our common stock. The number of record
holders does not include shareholders for whom shares are held
in a nominee or street name.
Dividend
Policy
We have never paid or declared any cash dividends on our common
stock. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any
future earnings to fund the development and expansion of our
business, and we do not anticipate any cash dividends in the
foreseeable future. In addition, the terms of our existing
credit agreement restrict the payment of cash dividends on our
common stock. Any future determination to pay dividends will be
at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on
our financial condition, results of operations, capital
requirements, contractual restrictions (including those under
our loan agreements) and other factors that our board of
directors deems relevant.
Use of
Proceeds from our Public Offering
We registered shares of our common stock in connection with our
IPO under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The
Registration Statement on
Form S-1
(Reg.
No. 333-145569)
filed in connection with our IPO was declared effective by the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2007.
The IPO commenced on December 18, 2007 and did not
terminate before any securities were sold. As of the date of
this filing, the IPO has terminated. Including shares sold
pursuant to the exercise by the underwriters of their
over-allotment option, 6,849,092 shares of our common stock
were registered and sold in the IPO by us and an additional
1,997,062 shares of common stock were registered and sold
by the selling shareholders named in the Registration Statement.
All shares were sold at a price to the public of $13.00 per
share.
After deducting the underwriters commission and the
offering expenses, we received net proceeds of approximately
$78.6 million.
We invested the net proceeds from our IPO in bank certificates
of deposits and money market accounts. Through March 31,
2011, approximately $48.8 million of the net proceeds from
the IPO had been used for working capital, capital expenditures
and general corporate purposes, along with $29.8 million
used to repurchase shares of
31
our common stock into treasury. As of the date of this filing,
we have not entered into any purchase agreements, understandings
or commitments with respect to any acquisitions. Other than for
our share repurchases, there has been no material change in the
planned use of proceeds from our IPO as described in our final
prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 18, 2007 pursuant to Rule 424(b).
Securities
Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation
Plans
The following table represents shares outstanding under the 2003
Stock Option Plan and the 2004 Equity Incentive Plan as of
March 31, 2011.
Equity
Compensation Plan Information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining Available
|
|
|
|
Securities to be
|
|
|
|
|
|
for Future
|
|
|
|
Issued Upon
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
|
Issuances Under the
|
|
|
|
Exercise of
|
|
|
Exercise Price of
|
|
|
Equity Compensation
|
|
Plan Category
|
|
Outstanding Options
|
|
|
Outstanding Options
|
|
|
Plans(1)
|
|
|
Equity Compensation plans approved by security holders
|
|
|
3,658,768
|
|
|
$
|
3.83
|
|
|
|
1,577,676
|
|
Equity Compensation plans not approved by security holders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
3,658,768
|
|
|
$
|
3.83
|
|
|
|
1,577,676
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes shares reflected in the column titled Number of
Securities to be Issued Upon Exercise of Outstanding
Options. |
Issuer
Purchase of Equity Securities
There were no repurchases of our common stock during the
three-month period ended March 31, 2011.
Unregistered
Sales of Securities
During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011, we issued
22,060 shares of common stock in connection with the
exercise of outstanding warrants at a weighted average exercise
price of $2.50 per share. These warrant exercises resulted in
aggregate proceeds to us of approximately $55,150. These
issuances of common stock were not registered under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and were exempt from such
registration pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended.
32
Stock
Price Performance Graph
The following graph shows the total shareholder return of an
investment of $100 in cash on December 19, 2007, the date
we priced our stock pursuant to our IPO, through March 31,
2011, for (1) our common stock, (2) the Russell 2000
Index and (3) The NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index.
Data for the Russell 2000 Index and the NASDAQ Clean Edge Green
Energy Index assume reinvestment of dividends. The stock price
performance graph should not be deemed filed or incorporated by
reference into any other filing made by us under the Securities
Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to
the extent that we specifically incorporate the stock
performance graph by reference in another filing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 19,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
Orion Energy Systems, Inc.
|
|
|
$
|
100
|
|
|
|
$
|
73
|
|
|
|
$
|
34
|
|
|
|
$
|
38
|
|
|
|
$
|
31
|
|
Russell 2000 Index
|
|
|
$
|
100
|
|
|
|
$
|
91
|
|
|
|
$
|
57
|
|
|
|
$
|
93
|
|
|
|
$
|
117
|
|
NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index
|
|
|
$
|
100
|
|
|
|
$
|
78
|
|
|
|
$
|
36
|
|
|
|
$
|
54
|
|
|
|
$
|
58
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33
|
|
ITEM 6.
|
SELECTED
FINANCIAL DATA
|
You should read the following selected consolidated financial
data in conjunction with Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
and our consolidated financial statements and the related notes
included elsewhere in this
Form 10-K.
The consolidated statements of operations data for the fiscal
years ended March 31, 2009, 2010 (as restated) and 2011 and
the consolidated balance sheet data as of March 31, 2010
(as restated) and 2011 are derived from our audited consolidated
financial statements included elsewhere in this
Form 10-K,
which have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles in the United States. As described below
in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations and Note B−
Restatement of Financial Statements to our consolidated
financial statements, our audited consolidated financial
statements for our fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 have
been restated to reflect our change of accounting for our OTA
contracts from operating lease treatment to sales-type capital
lease treatment. The consolidated statements of operations data
for the years ended March 31, 2007 and 2008, and the
consolidated balance sheet data as of March 31, 2007, 2008
and 2009 have been derived from our audited consolidated
financial statements which are not included in this
Form 10-K.
The selected historical consolidated financial data are not
necessarily indicative of future results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
(As Restated)(5)
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
|
|
|
Consolidated statements of operations data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Product revenue
|
|
$
|
40,201
|
|
|
$
|
65,359
|
|
|
$
|
63,008
|
|
|
$
|
60,882
|
|
|
$
|
86,443
|
|
Service revenue
|
|
|
7,982
|
|
|
|
15,328
|
|
|
|
9,626
|
|
|
|
7,191
|
|
|
|
6,015
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue
|
|
|
48,183
|
|
|
|
80,687
|
|
|
|
72,634
|
|
|
|
68,073
|
|
|
|
92,458
|
|
Cost of product revenue(1)
|
|
|
26,511
|
|
|
|
42,127
|
|
|
|
42,235
|
|
|
|
40,063
|
|
|
|
58,251
|
|
Cost of service revenue
|
|
|
5,976
|
|
|
|
10,335
|
|
|
|
6,801
|
|
|
|
5,266
|
|
|
|
4,499
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost of revenue
|
|
|
32,487
|
|
|
|
52,462
|
|
|
|
49,036
|
|
|
|
45,329
|
|
|
|
62,750
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
15,696
|
|
|
|
28,225
|
|
|
|
23,598
|
|
|
|
22,744
|
|
|
|
29,708
|
|
General and administrative expenses(1)
|
|
|
6,162
|
|
|
|
10,200
|
|
|
|
10,451
|
|
|
|
12,836
|
|
|
|
11,431
|
|
Sales and marketing expenses(1)
|
|
|
6,459
|
|
|
|
8,832
|
|
|
|
11,261
|
|
|
|
12,596
|
|
|
|
13,740
|
|
Research and development expenses(1)
|
|
|
1,078
|
|
|
|
1,832
|
|
|
|
1,942
|
|
|
|
1,891
|
|
|
|
2,333
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from operations
|
|
|
1,997
|
|
|
|
7,361
|
|
|
|
(56
|
)
|
|
|
(4,579
|
)
|
|
|
2,204
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
1,044
|
|
|
|
1,390
|
|
|
|
167
|
|
|
|
256
|
|
|
|
406
|
|
Loss on sale of receivables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
561
|
|
|
|
1,012
|
|
Extinguishment of debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
250
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividend and interest income
|
|
|
201
|
|
|
|
1,189
|
|
|
|
1,661
|
|
|
|
670
|
|
|
|
571
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income tax
|
|
|
1,154
|
|
|
|
7,160
|
|
|
|
1,438
|
|
|
|
(4,476
|
)
|
|
|
1,357
|
|
Income tax expense (benefit)
|
|
|
225
|
|
|
|
2,750
|
|
|
|
927
|
|
|
|
(1,003
|
)
|
|
|
(243
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
929
|
|
|
|
4,410
|
|
|
|
511
|
|
|
|
(3,473
|
)
|
|
|
1,600
|
|
Accretion of redeemable preferred stock and preferred stock
dividends(2)
|
|
|
(201
|
)
|
|
|
(225
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conversion of preferred stock(3)
|
|
|
(83
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Participation rights of preferred stock in undistributed
earnings(4)
|
|
|
(205
|
)
|
|
|
(775
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) attributable to common shareholders
|
|
$
|
440
|
|
|
$
|
3,410
|
|
|
$
|
511
|
|
|
$
|
(3,473
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,600
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per share attributable to common shareholders:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
0.05
|
|
|
$
|
0.22
|
|
|
$
|
0.02
|
|
|
$
|
(0.16
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.07
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$
|
0.05
|
|
|
$
|
0.19
|
|
|
$
|
0.02
|
|
|
$
|
(0.16
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.07
|
|
Weighted-average shares outstanding:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
|
9,080
|
|
|
|
15,548
|
|
|
|
25,352
|
|
|
|
21,844
|
|
|
|
22,678
|
|
Diluted
|
|
|
16,433
|
|
|
|
23,454
|
|
|
|
27,445
|
|
|
|
21,844
|
|
|
|
23,198
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of March 31,
|
|
|
2007
|
|
2008
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
|
(As Restated)(5)
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
Consolidated balance sheet data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
285
|
|
|
$
|
78,312
|
|
|
$
|
36,163
|
|
|
$
|
23,364
|
|
|
$
|
11,560
|
|
Short-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,404
|
|
|
|
6,490
|
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
1,011
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
33,583
|
|
|
|
130,702
|
|
|
|
103,722
|
|
|
|
104,578
|
|
|
|
114,990
|
|
Long-term debt, less current maturities
|
|
|
10,603
|
|
|
|
4,473
|
|
|
|
3,647
|
|
|
|
3,156
|
|
|
|
4,225
|
|
Temporary equity (Series C convertible redeemable preferred
stock)
|
|
|
4,953
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series B convertible preferred stock
|
|
|
5,959
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholder notes receivable
|
|
|
(2,128
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(193
|
)
|
Shareholders equity
|
|
$
|
9,355
|
|
|
$
|
113,190
|
|
|
$
|
88,695
|
|
|
$
|
88,387
|
|
|
$
|
92,387
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes stock-based compensation expense recognized under
Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards
Codification Topic 718, or ASC Topic 718, as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Cost of product revenue
|
|
$
|
269
|
|
|
$
|
222
|
|
|
$
|
187
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
676
|
|
|
|
539
|
|
|
|
560
|
|
Sales and marketing expenses
|
|
|
587
|
|
|
|
691
|
|
|
|
523
|
|
Research and development expenses
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stock-based compensation expense
|
|
$
|
1,577
|
|
|
$
|
1,491
|
|
|
$
|
1,301
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2) |
|
For fiscal 2007 and 2008, represents the impact attributable to
the accretion of accumulated dividends on our Series C
preferred stock, plus accumulated dividends on our Series A
preferred stock prior to its conversion into common stock on
March 31, 2007. The Series C preferred converted
automatically into common stock on a
one-for-one
basis upon the closing of our IPO and our obligation to pay
accumulated dividends was extinguished. |
|
(3) |
|
Represents the estimated fair market value of the premium paid
to holders of Series A preferred stock upon induced
conversion. See Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Revenue and Expense Components Conversion of
Preferred Stock. |
|
(4) |
|
For fiscal 2007 and 2008, represents the impact attributable to
the accretion of accumulated dividends on our Series C
preferred stock, plus accumulated dividends on our Series A
preferred stock prior to its conversion into common stock on
March 31, 2007. The Series C preferred converted
automatically into common stock on a
one-for-one
basis upon the closing of our IPO and our obligation to pay
accumulated dividends was extinguished. |
|
(5) |
|
For fiscal 2010, represents the impact of an accounting
restatement from operating lease treatment to sales-type capital
lease treatment for our OTA finance contracts. See
Note B Restatement of Financial Statements to
our consolidated financial statements for detailed information
regarding the impact of the restatement on fiscal 2010. |
35
|
|
ITEM 7.
|
MANAGEMENTS
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS
|
The following discussion and analysis should be read in
conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and
related notes, included elsewhere in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
See also Forward-Looking Statements and
Item 1A. Risk Factors. The information below
has been adjusted to reflect the impact of the restatement of
our financial results which is more fully described in
Note B Restatement of Financial Statements to
the consolidated financial statements contained in this Annual
Report on
Form 10-K
and under the paragraph Restatement of Previously Issued
Consolidated Financial Statements below and does not
reflect any subsequent information or events occurring after the
date of the filing of our reports originally presenting the
financial information being restated or update any disclosure
herein to reflect the passage of time since the date of such
filings.
Restatement
of Previously Issued Consolidated Financial Statements
As discussed above under Item 1, Restatement of
Previously Issued Consolidated Financial Statements in
this Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
we have restated our previously issued consolidated financial
statements and related disclosures for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2010 and each of the quarterly consolidated
financial statements for the periods ended June 30, 2009
through December 31, 2010 to account for our transactions
under our Orion Throughput Agreements, or OTAs, as sales-type
leases instead of as operating leases.
Our prior method of accounting for OTA transactions as operating
leases deferred revenue recognition over the full term of the
OTA contracts, only recognizing revenue on a monthly basis as
customer payments are due, while the upfront sales, general and
administrative expenses related to these OTA contracts were
recognized immediately.
Generally, this change in accounting treatment has resulted in:
|
|
|
|
|
No impact to our cash, cash equivalents, short-term investments;
or overall cash flow;
|
|
|
|
|
|
An increase in our revenue of $2.8 million (3%) and
$2.7 million (4%) for our full fiscal years 2011 and 2010,
respectively;
|
|
|
|
|
|
An increase in our net income of $0.4 million (34%) and
earnings per share of $0.02 (40%) for our full fiscal year 2011
and a reduction in our net loss of $0.7 million (17%) and
loss per share of $0.03 (16%) for our full fiscal year 2010;
|
|
|
|
|
|
An increase in our current assets of $3.8 million (6%) and
total assets of $1.0 million (1%) and an increase in our
total shareholders equity of $0.7 million (1%) for
our fiscal year 2010 and an increase in our current assets of
$2.7 million (4%) and total assets of $0.5 million
(1%) and an increase in our total shareholders equity of
$1.6 million (2%) and a decrease in our total liabilities
of $1.1 million (5%) for our fiscal year 2011; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
An increase in our net cash used in operating activities of
$2.4 million (38%), a decrease in net our cash used in
investing activities of $2.0 million (26%) and an increase
in our net cash provided by financing activities of
$0.4 million (18%) for our fiscal year 2011 and an increase
in our net cash used in operating activities of
$2.1 million (24%) and a decrease in net our cash used in
investing activities of $2.1 million (40%) for our fiscal
year 2010; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
An increase in our revenue, net income and earnings per share
for the first three quarters of each of our fiscal years 2011
and 2010 and a decrease in revenue, net income and earnings per
share for the last quarter of our fiscal year 2010.
|
We do not plan to amend our previously filed Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010 due to the
restatement of our previously issued consolidated financial
statements and related disclosures for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2010 contained herein. However, we plan to amend
our Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q
for the periods ended June 30, 2009 through
December 31, 2010 to reflect the restatements described in
this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
As a result of the restatement, the financial statements and
related financial statement information contained in those
reports should no longer be relied upon. Throughout this Annual
Report
36
on
Form 10-K,
all amounts presented from prior periods and prior period
comparisons that have been revised are labeled As
Restated and reflect the balances and amounts on a
restated basis.
Overview
We design, manufacture and implement energy management systems
consisting primarily of high-performance, energy-efficient
lighting systems, controls and related services.
We currently generate the substantial majority of our revenue
from sales of high intensity fluorescent, or HIF, lighting
systems and related services to commercial and industrial
customers. We typically sell our HIF lighting systems in
replacement of our customers existing high intensity
discharge, or HID, fixtures. We call this replacement process a
retrofit. We frequently engage our customers
existing electrical contractor to provide installation and
project management services. We also sell our HIF lighting
systems on a wholesale basis, principally to electrical
contractors and value-added resellers to sell to their own
customer bases.
We have sold and installed more than 2,056,000 of our HIF
lighting systems in over 6,800 facilities from December 1,
2001 through March 31, 2011. Our top direct customers by
revenue in fiscal 2011 included
Coca-Cola
Enterprises Inc., U.S. Foodservice, SYSCO Corp., Ball
Corporation, MillerCoors and Pepsico, Inc. and its affiliates.
Our fiscal year ends on March 31. We call our fiscal years
which ended on March 31, 2009, 2010 and 2011, fiscal
2009, fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011,
respectively. Our fiscal first quarter ends on June 30, our
fiscal second quarter ends on September 30, our fiscal
third quarter ends on December 31 and our fiscal fourth quarter
ends on March 31.
Because of the recessed state of the global economy, especially
as it impacted capital equipment manufacturers, our results for
the first half of fiscal 2011 continued to be impacted by
lengthened customer sales cycles and sluggish customer capital
spending. During the second half of fiscal 2011, capital
equipment purchases were slightly improved and we continue to
remain optimistic regarding customer behaviors heading into
fiscal year 2012. To address these difficult economic
conditions, we implemented $3.2 million of annualized cost
reductions during the first quarter of fiscal 2010. These cost
containment initiatives included reductions related to
headcount, work hours and discretionary spending and began to
show results in the second half of fiscal 2010 and the first
half of fiscal 2011. During the second quarter of fiscal 2011,
we identified an additional $1 million of annualized cost
reductions related to decreased product costs, improved
manufacturing efficiencies and reduced operating expenses. We
realized these cost reductions beginning during the fiscal 2011
third quarter through reduction in general and administrative
expenses and improved product margins for our HIF lighting
systems.
Despite these recent economic challenges, we remain optimistic
about our near-term and long-term financial performance. Our
near-term optimism is based upon our record level of revenue in
fiscal 2011 along with our return to profitability, the
increasing volume of unit sales in the back half of fiscal 2011
of our new products, specifically our exterior HIF fixtures,
InteLite wireless dynamic controls, and our Apollo light pipes,
the increase in the number of our value-added resellers and
their sales staffs and our cost reduction plans completed during
fiscal 2011. Our long-term optimism is based upon the
considerable size of the existing market opportunity for
lighting retrofits, the continued development of our new
products and product enhancements, the opportunity for
additional revenue from sales of renewable technologies through
our Orion Engineered Systems division, the opportunity for our
participation in the replacement part aftermarket and the
increasing national recognition of the importance of
environmental stewardship, including legislation within the
State of Wisconsin passed earlier this fiscal year that
recognized our solar Apollo light pipe as a renewable product
offering and qualified it for incentives currently offered to
other renewable technologies.
In August 2009, we created Orion Engineered Systems, a new
operating division which has been offering our customers
additional alternative renewable energy systems. In fiscal 2010,
we sold and installed three solar photovoltaic, or PV,
electricity generating projects, completing our test analysis on
two of the three in the fiscal 2010 third quarter, and executed
our first cash sale and our first Power Purchase Agreement, or
PPA, as a result of the successful testing of these systems. We
completed the installation and customer acceptance of the third
system, a cash sale, during our fiscal 2011 first quarter.
During our fiscal 2011 second quarter, we received an
$8.2 million cash order for a solar PV generating system
for which we recognized $6.6 million of revenue in fiscal
2011.
37
Additionally, Orion Engineered Systems is responsible for our
project management activities and related service revenues for
both HIF lighting and renewable technology projects.
During our fiscal 2011 third quarter, revenue from our Orion
Engineered Systems group exceeded the quantitative threshold for
GAAP segment accounting. We now report our Energy Management and
Engineered Systems groups as separate segments. Our Energy
Management division develops, manufactures and sells commercial
high intensity fluorescent, or HIF, lighting systems and energy
management systems. Our Engineered Systems division sells and
integrates alternative renewable energy systems and provides
technical services for the Companys sale of HIF lighting
systems and energy management systems.
In response to the constraints on our customers capital
spending budgets, we have more aggressively promoted the
advantages to our customers of purchasing our energy management
systems through our Orion Throughput Agreement, or OTA,
financing program. Our OTA financing program provides for our
customers purchase of our energy management systems
without an up-front capital outlay. The OTA is structured as a
supply agreement in which we receive monthly rental payments
over the life of the contract, typically 12 months, with an
annual renewable agreement with a maximum term between two and
five years. We expect that the number of customers who choose to
purchase our systems by using our OTA financing program will
continue to increase in future periods. Additionally, we have
provided a financing program to our alternative renewable energy
system customers called a solar PPA as an alternative to
purchasing our systems for cash. The PPA is a supply side
agreement for the generation of electricity and subsequent sale
to the end user. We do not intend to use our own cash balances
to fund future PPA opportunities and are looking to secure
external sources of funding for PPAs on behalf of our
customers.
Revenue
and Expense Components
Revenue. We sell our energy management
products and services directly to commercial and industrial
customers, and indirectly to end users through our partner
network and through wholesale sales to electrical contractors
and value-added resellers. We currently generate the substantial
majority of our revenue from sales of HIF lighting systems and
related services to commercial and industrial customers. While
our services include comprehensive site assessment, site field
verification, utility incentive and government subsidy
management, engineering design, project management, installation
and recycling in connection with our retrofit installations, we
separately recognize service revenue only for our installation
and recycling services. Our service revenues are recognized when
services are complete and customer acceptance has been received.
In fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011, we increased our efforts to
expand our value-added reseller channels, including through
developing a partner standard operating procedural kit,
providing our partners with product marketing materials and
providing training to channel partners on our sales
methodologies. These wholesale channels accounted for
approximately 43% of our total revenue volume in fiscal 2010 and
increased to 53% of total revenue contributed in fiscal 2011,
not taking into consideration our renewable technologies revenue
generated through our Orion Engineered Systems division.
Additionally, we offer our OTA sales-type financing program
under which we finance the customers purchase of our
energy management systems. The OTA program was established to
assist customers who are interested in purchasing our energy
management systems but who have capital expenditure budget
limitations. Our OTA contracts are capital leases under GAAP and
we record revenue at the present value of the future payments at
the time customer acceptance of the installed and operating
system is complete. Our OTA contracts under this sales-type
financing are either structured with a fixed term, typically
60 months, and a bargain purchase option at the end of
term, or are one year in duration and, at the completion of the
initial one-year term, provide for (i) one to four
automatic one-year renewals at agreed upon pricing; (ii) an
early buyout for cash; or (iii) the return of the equipment
at the customers expense. The revenue that we are entitled
to receive from the sale of our lighting fixtures under our OTA
financing program is fixed and is based on the cost of the
lighting fixtures and applicable profit margin. Our revenue from
agreements entered into under this program is not dependent upon
our customers actual energy savings. Upon completion of
the installation, we may choose to sell the future cash flows
and residual rights to the equipment on a non-recourse basis to
an unrelated third party finance company in exchange for cash
and future payments. We recognize revenue from OTA contracts at
the net present value of the future cash flows at the completion
date of the installation of the energy management systems and
the customers acknowledgement that they system is operating as
specified.
38
In fiscal 2010, we recognized $5.5 million of revenue from
85 completed OTA contracts. In fiscal 2011, we recognized
$10.7 million of revenue from 127 completed OTA contracts.
In the future, we expect an increase in the volume of OTAs as
our customers take advantage of our value proposition without
incurring any up-front capital cost.
Our PPA financing program provides for our customers
purchase of electricity from our renewable energy generating
assets without an upfront capital outlay. Our PPA is a
longer-term contract, typically in excess of 10 years, in
which we receive monthly payments over the life of the contract.
This program creates an ongoing recurring revenue stream, but
reduces near-term revenue as the payments are recognized as
revenue on a monthly basis over the life of the contract versus
upfront upon product shipment or project completion. In fiscal
2010, we did not recognize any revenue from completed PPAs. In
fiscal 2011, we recognized $0.4 million of revenue from
completed PPAs. As of March 31, 2011, we had signed one
customer to two separate PPAs representing future potential
discounted revenue streams of $3.2 million. We discount the
future revenue from PPAs due to the long-term nature of the
contracts, typically in excess of 10 years. The timing of
expected future discounted GAAP revenue recognition and the
resulting operating cash inflows from PPAs, assuming the systems
perform as designed, was as follows as of March 31, 2011
(in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2012
|
|
$
|
432
|
|
Fiscal 2013
|
|
|
432
|
|
Fiscal 2014
|
|
|
431
|
|
Fiscal 2015
|
|
|
431
|
|
Fiscal 2016
|
|
|
431
|
|
Beyond
|
|
|
998
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total expected future discounted revenue from PPAs
|
|
$
|
3,155
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other than for OTA and PPA revenue, we recognize revenue on
product only sales at the time of shipment. For projects
consisting of multiple elements of revenue, such as a
combination of product sales and services, we recognize revenue
by allocating the total contract revenue to each element based
on their relative selling prices. We determine the selling price
of products based upon the price charged when these products are
sold separately. For services, we determine the selling price
based upon managements best estimate giving consideration
to pricing practices, margin objectives, competition, scope and
size of individual projects, geographies in which we offer our
products and services and internal costs. We recognize revenue
at the time of product shipment on product sales and on services
completed prior to product shipment. We recognize revenue
associated with services provided after product shipment, based
on their relative selling price, when the services are completed
and customer acceptance has been received. When other
significant obligations or acceptance terms remain after
products are delivered, revenue is recognized only after such
obligations are fulfilled or acceptance by the customer has
occurred.
Our dependence on individual key customers can vary from period
to period as a result of the significant size of some of our
retrofit and multi-facility roll-out projects. Our top 10
customers accounted for approximately 36%, 29% and 38% of our
total revenue for fiscal 2009, fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011. No
customer accounted for more than 10% of our total revenue in any
of fiscal 2009, 2010 or 2011. To the extent that large retrofit
and roll-out projects become a greater component of our total
revenue, we may experience more customer concentration in given
periods. The loss of, or substantial reduction in sales volume
to, any of our significant customers could have a material
adverse effect on our total revenue in any given period and may
result in significant annual and quarterly revenue variations.
Our level of total revenue for any given period is dependent
upon a number of factors, including (i) the demand for our
products and systems, including our OTA and PPA programs and any
new products, applications and service that we may introduce
through our Orion Engineered Systems division; (ii) the
number and timing of large retrofit and multi-facility retrofit,
or roll-out, projects; (iii) the level of our
wholesale sales; (iv) our ability to realize revenue from
our services; (v) market conditions; (vi) our
execution of our sales process; (vii) our ability to
compete in a highly competitive market and our ability to
respond successfully to market competition; (viii) the
selling price of our products and services; (ix) changes in
capital investment levels by our customers and prospects; and
39
(x) customer sales and budget cycles. As a result, our
total revenue may be subject to quarterly variations and our
total revenue for any particular fiscal quarter may not be
indicative of future results.
Contracted Revenue. Although Contracted
Revenue is not a term recognized under GAAP, since the
volume of our OTA and PPA business is expected to continue to
increase and because our OTA revenues are not recognized until
project completion occurs and due to the long-term operating
lease treatment of our PPA projects, we believe Contracted
Revenue provides our management and investors with an
informative measure of our relative order activity for any
particular period. We define Contracted Revenue as the total
contractual value of all firm purchase orders received for our
products and services and the expected future potential gross
revenue streams, including all renewal periods, for all OTAs
upon the execution of the contract and the discounted value of
future potential revenue from energy generation over the life of
all PPAs along with the discounted value of revenue for
renewable energy credits, or RECs, for as long as the REC
programs are currently defined to be in existence with the
governing body. For cash Contracted Revenue, we generally expect
that we will begin to recognize GAAP revenue within 30 days
from receipt of purchase order. For OTA Contracted Revenue, we
generally expect that we will begin to recognize GAAP revenue
under the terms of the agreements within
90-120 days
from the firm contract date. For PPA Contracted Revenue, we
generally expect that we will begin to recognize GAAP revenue
under the terms of the PPAs within 180 days from the firm
contract date. We believe that total Contracted Revenues are a
key financial metric for evaluating and measuring our
performance because the measure is an indicator of our success
in our customers adoption and acceptance of our energy
products and services as it measures firm contracted revenue
value, regardless of the contracts cash or deferred
financial structure and the related different GAAP revenue
recognition treatment. In fiscal 2009, total Contracted Revenue
was $71.6 million, including $1.5 million of expected
gross cash flow streams associated with OTAs. In fiscal 2010,
total Contracted Revenue was $73.9 million, which included
$10.0 million of expected potential gross cash flow streams
associated with OTAs and $1.7 million of potential
discounted revenue streams from PPAs. In fiscal 2011, total
Contracted Revenue was $103.9 million, an increase of 41%
compared to fiscal 2010, which included $14.6 million of
expected potential gross cash flow streams associated with OTAs
and $1.9 million of potential discounted revenue streams
from PPAs. A reconciliation of our contracted revenues to our
GAAP revenues is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended
|
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2010
|
|
|
March 31, 2011
|
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Contracted Revenues
|
|
$
|
73.9
|
|
|
$
|
103.9
|
|
Change in cash order backlog(1)
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
|
|
(4.6
|
)
|
Change in OTA backlog(2)
|
|
|
(1.5
|
)
|
|
|
(0.7
|
)
|
Contracted Revenue from PPAs(3)
|
|
|
(1.7
|
)
|
|
|
(1.9
|
)
|
PPA GAAP revenue recognized
|
|
|
0.0
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
Other miscellaneous(4)
|
|
|
(2.2
|
)
|
|
|
(4.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue GAAP basis
|
|
$
|
68.1
|
|
|
$
|
92.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Change in backlog reflects the (increase) or decrease in cash
orders at the end of the respective period where product
delivery or service performance has not yet occurred. GAAP
revenue will be recognized when the performance conditions have
been satisfied, typically within 90 days from the end of
the period. |
|
(2) |
|
Change in OTA backlog reflects the (increase) or decrease in OTA
contracts at the end of the respective period where the project
was in implementation. GAAP revenue will be recognized at the
net present value of future cash flows upon completion of the
installation and the customer acceptance of the technology. |
|
(3) |
|
Contracted Revenue from PPAs is subtracted to reconcile the GAAP
revenue as recognition of GAAP revenue will occur in future
periods. |
|
(4) |
|
Other miscellaneous includes a reduction from OTA contracted
revenues measured at gross future cash flows and GAAP revenue
measured at the net present value of future cash flows for
completed OTA projects. |
Backlog. We define backlog as the total
contractual value of all firm orders received for our lighting
products and services where delivery of product or completion of
services has not yet occurred as of the end of any particular
40
reporting period. Such orders must be evidenced by a signed
proposal acceptance or purchase order from the customer. Our
backlog does not include OTAs, PPAs or national contracts that
have been negotiated, but under which we have not yet received a
purchase order for the specific location. As of March 31,
2010, we had a backlog of firm purchase orders of approximately
$3.2 million. As of March 31, 2011, we had a backlog
of firm purchase orders of approximately $7.8 million,
which included $6.5 million of solar PV orders. We
generally expect this level of firm purchase order backlog
related to HIF lighting systems to be converted into revenue
within the following quarter and our firm purchase order backlog
related to solar PV systems to be recognized within the
following two quarters. Principally as a result of the continued
lengthening of our customers purchasing decisions because
of current recessed economic conditions and related factors, the
continued shortening of our installation cycles and the number
of projects sold through national and OTAs, a comparison of
backlog from period to period is not necessarily meaningful and
may not be indicative of actual revenue recognized in future
periods.
Cost of Revenue. Our total cost of revenue
consists of costs for: (i) raw materials, including sheet,
coiled and specialty reflective aluminum; (ii) electrical
components, including ballasts, power supplies and lamps;
(iii) wages and related personnel expenses, including
stock-based compensation charges, for our fabricating, coating,
assembly, logistics and project installation service
organizations; (iv) manufacturing facilities, including
depreciation on our manufacturing facilities and equipment,
taxes, insurance and utilities; (v) warranty expenses;
(vi) installation and integration; and (vii) shipping
and handling. Our cost of aluminum can be subject to commodity
price fluctuations, which we attempt to mitigate with forward
fixed-price, minimum quantity purchase commitments with our
suppliers. We also purchase many of our electrical components
through forward purchase contracts. We buy most of our specialty
reflective aluminum from a single supplier, and most of our
ballast and lamp components from a single supplier, although we
believe we could obtain sufficient quantities of these raw
materials and components on a price and quality competitive
basis from other suppliers if necessary. Purchases from our
current primary supplier of ballast and lamp components
constituted 19%, 26% and 34% of our total cost of revenue in
fiscal 2009, fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011. Our cost of revenue
from OTA projects is recorded upon customer acceptance and
acknowledgement that the system is operating as specified. Our
production labor force is non-union and, as a result, our
production labor costs have been relatively stable. We have been
expanding our network of qualified third-party installers to
realize efficiencies in the installation process. During fiscal
2010 and fiscal 2011, we reduced headcounts and improved
production product flow through reengineering of our assembly
stations.
Gross Margin. Our gross profit has been, and
will continue to be, affected by the relative levels of our
total revenue and our total cost of revenue, and as a result,
our gross profit may be subject to quarterly variation. Our
gross profit as a percentage of total revenue, or gross margin,
is affected by a number of factors, including: (i) our
level of solar PV sales which generally have substantially lower
relative gross margins than our traditional energy management
systems; (ii) our mix of large retrofit and multi-facility
roll-out projects with national accounts; (iii) the level
of our wholesale and partner sales (which generally have
historically resulted in lower relative gross margins, but
higher relative net margins, than our sales to direct
customers); (iv) our realization rate on our billable
services; (v) our project pricing; (vi) our level of
warranty claims; (vii) our level of utilization of our
manufacturing facilities and production equipment and related
absorption of our manufacturing overhead costs; (viii) our
level of efficiencies in our manufacturing operations; and
(ix) our level of efficiencies from our subcontracted
installation service providers.
Operating Expenses. Our operating expenses
consist of: (i) general and administrative expenses;
(ii) sales and marketing expenses; and (iii) research
and development expenses. Personnel related costs are our
largest operating expense. In fiscal 2012, we intend to increase
headcount in our sales areas for telemarketing and direct sales
employees as we believe that future opportunities within our
business remain strong.
Our general and administrative expenses consist primarily of
costs for: (i) salaries and related personnel expenses,
including stock-based compensation charges related to our
executive, finance, human resource, information technology and
operations organizations; (ii) public company costs,
including investor relations, external audit and internal audit;
(iii) occupancy expenses; (iv) professional services
fees; (v) technology related costs and amortization;
(vi) bad debt and asset impairment charges; and
(vii) corporate-related travel.
Our sales and marketing expenses consist primarily of costs for:
(i) salaries and related personnel expenses, including
stock-based compensation charges related to our sales and
marketing organization; (ii) internal and
41
external sales commissions and bonuses; (iii) travel,
lodging and other
out-of-pocket
expenses associated with our selling efforts;
(iv) marketing programs; (v) pre-sales costs; and
(vi) other related overhead.
Our research and development expenses consist primarily of costs
for: (i) salaries and related personnel expenses, including
stock-based compensation charges, related to our engineering
organization; (ii) payments to consultants; (iii) the
design and development of new energy management products and
enhancements to our existing energy management system;
(iv) quality assurance and testing; and (v) other
related overhead. We expense research and development costs as
incurred.
In fiscal 2010, our operating expenses increased as a result of
the completion of our new technology center and the related
building occupancy costs. During fiscal 2011, we invested in
marketing efforts to our direct end customers and to our channel
partners through increasing advertising, marketing collateral
materials and participating in national industry and customer
trade shows. We expense all pre-sale costs incurred in
connection with our sales process prior to obtaining a purchase
order. These pre-sale costs may reduce our net income in a given
period prior to recognizing any corresponding revenue. We also
intend to continue investing in our research and development of
new and enhanced energy management products and services.
We recognize compensation expense for the fair value of our
stock option awards granted over their related vesting period.
We recognized $1.6 million, $1.5 million and
$1.3 million of stock-based compensation expense in fiscal
2009, fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011. As a result of prior option
grants, including option grants in fiscal 2011, we expect to
recognize an additional $4.0 million of stock-based
compensation over a weighted average period of approximately
seven years. These charges have been, and will continue to be,
allocated to cost of product revenue, general and administrative
expenses, sales and marketing expenses and research and
development expenses based on the departments in which the
personnel receiving such awards have primary responsibility. A
substantial majority of these charges have been, and likely will
continue to be, allocated to general and administrative expenses
and sales and marketing expenses.
Interest Expense. Our interest expense is
comprised primarily of interest expense on outstanding
borrowings under long-term debt obligations described under
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Indebtedness below, including the amortization of
previously incurred financing costs. We amortize deferred
financing costs to interest expense over the life of the related
debt instrument, ranging from two to fifteen years.
Loss on Sale of Receivable. Our loss on sale
of receivables consists of losses associated with sales of
receivables from OTA contracts to a third party and the
discounted value of the long-term payments associated with such
sale.
Dividend and Interest Income. Our dividend
income consisted of dividends paid on preferred shares that we
acquired in July 2006. The terms of these preferred shares
provided for annual dividend payments to us of
$0.1 million. We sold the preferred shares back to the
issuer in June 2008 and all dividends accrued were paid upon
sale. We also report interest income earned from our financed
OTA contracts and on our cash and cash equivalents and short
term investments. For fiscal 2009, our interest income increased
as a result of our investment of the net proceeds from our
initial public offering in short-term, interest-bearing, money
market funds, bank certificate of deposits and investment-grade
securities. For fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011, our interest income
increased as a result of the increasing OTA finance contracts
completed and the related interest charged to customers.
Income Taxes. As of March 31, 2011, we
had net operating loss carryforwards of approximately
$8.1 million for federal tax purposes and $4.8 million
for state tax purposes. Included in these loss carryforwards
were $5.1 million for federal and $2.6 million for
state tax purposes of compensation expenses that were associated
with the exercise of nonqualified stock options. The benefit
from our net operating losses created from these compensation
expenses has not yet been recognized in our financial statements
and will be accounted for in our shareholders equity as a
credit to additional paid-in capital as the deduction reduces
our income taxes payable. We also had federal tax credit
carryforwards of approximately $0.8 million and state tax
credits of $0.6 million. A valuation allowance has been set
up for the state tax credits due to our state apportioned income
and the potential expiration of the state tax credits due to the
carry forward period. These federal and state net operating
losses and credit carryforwards are available, subject to the
discussion in the following paragraph, to offset future taxable
income and, if not utilized, will begin to expire in varying
amounts between 2014-2030.
42
Generally, a change of more than 50% in the ownership of a
companys stock, by value, over a three year period
constitutes an ownership change for federal income tax purposes.
An ownership change may limit a companys ability to use
its net operating loss carryforwards attributable to the period
prior to such change. In fiscal 2007 and prior to our IPO, past
issuances and transfers of stock caused an ownership change for
certain tax purposes. When certain ownership changes occur, tax
laws require that a calculation be made to establish a
limitation on the use of net operating loss carryforwards
created in periods prior to such ownership change. There was no
limitation that occurred for fiscal 2010 or fiscal 2011.
Results
of Operations
The following table sets forth the line items of our
consolidated statements of operations on an absolute dollar
basis and as a relative percentage of our total revenue for each
applicable period, together with the relative percentage change
in such line item between applicable comparable periods set
forth below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenue
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenue
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Revenue
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
(As Restated) (1)
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
Product revenue
|
|
$
|
63,008
|
|
|
|
86.7
|
%
|
|
$
|
60,882
|
|
|
|
89.4
|
%
|
|
|
(3.4
|
)%
|
|
$
|
86,443
|
|
|
|
93.5
|
%
|
|
|
42.0
|
%
|
Service revenue
|
|
|
9,626
|
|
|
|
13.3
|
%
|
|
|
7,191
|
|
|
|
10.6
|
%
|
|
|
(25.3
|
)%
|
|
|
6,015
|
|
|
|
6.5
|
%
|
|
|
(16.4
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue
|
|
|
72,634
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
68,073
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
(6.3
|
)%
|
|
|
92,458
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
35.8
|
%
|
Cost of product revenue
|
|
|
42,235
|
|
|
|
58.1
|
%
|
|
|
40,063
|
|
|
|
58.9
|
%
|
|
|
(5.1
|
)%
|
|
|
58,251
|
|
|
|
63.0
|
%
|
|
|
45.4
|
%
|
Cost of service revenue
|
|
|
6,801
|
|
|
|
9.4
|
%
|
|
|
5,266
|
|
|
|
7.7
|
%
|
|
|
(22.6
|
)%
|
|
|
4,499
|
|
|
|
4.9
|
%
|
|
|
(14.6
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost of revenue
|
|
|
49,036
|
|
|
|
67.5
|
%
|
|
|
45,329
|
|
|
|
66.6
|
%
|
|
|
(7.6
|
)%
|
|
|
62,750
|
|
|
|
67.9
|
%
|
|
|
38.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
23,598
|
|
|
|
32.5
|
%
|
|
|
22,744
|
|
|
|
33.4
|
%
|
|
|
(3.6
|
)%
|
|
|
29,708
|
|
|
|
32.1
|
%
|
|
|
30.6
|
%
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
10,451
|
|
|
|
14.4
|
%
|
|
|
12,836
|
|
|
|
18.9
|
%
|
|
|
22.8
|
%
|
|
|
11,431
|
|
|
|
12.4
|
%
|
|
|
(10.9
|
)%
|
Sales and marketing expenses
|
|
|
11,261
|
|
|
|
15.5
|
%
|
|
|
12,596
|
|
|
|
18.5
|
%
|
|
|
11.9
|
%
|
|
|
13,740
|
|
|
|
14.9
|
%
|
|
|
9.1
|
%
|
Research and development expenses
|
|
|
1,942
|
|
|
|
2.7
|
%
|
|
|
1,891
|
|
|
|
2.8
|
%
|
|
|
(2.6
|
)%
|
|
|
2,333
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
%
|
|
|
23.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from operations
|
|
|
(56
|
)
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)%
|
|
|
(4,579
|
)
|
|
|
(6.7
|
)%
|
|
|
NM
|
|
|
|
2,204
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
%
|
|
|
148.1
|
%
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(167
|
)
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
|
(256
|
)
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)%
|
|
|
(53.3
|
)%
|
|
|
(406
|
)
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)%
|
|
|
58.6
|
%
|
Loss on sale of receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
(561
|
)
|
|
|
(0.8
|
)%
|
|
|
NM
|
|
|
|
(1,012
|
)
|
|
|
(1.1
|
)%
|
|
|
80.4
|
%
|
Extinguishment of debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
250
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
(100.0
|
)%
|
Dividend and interest income
|
|
|
1,661
|
|
|
|
2.3
|
%
|
|
|
670
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
%
|
|
|
(59.7
|
)%
|
|
|
571
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
%
|
|
|
(14.8
|
) %
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income tax
|
|
|
1,438
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
%
|
|
|
(4,476
|
)
|
|
|
(6.6
|
)%
|
|
|
(411.3
|
)%
|
|
|
1,357
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
%
|
|
|
130.3
|
%
|
Income tax expense (benefit)
|
|
|
927
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
|
|
(1,003
|
)
|
|
|
(1.5
|
)%
|
|
|
(208.2
|
)%
|
|
|
(243
|
)
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)%
|
|
|
75.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
511
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
%
|
|
$
|
(3,473
|
)
|
|
|
(5.1
|
)%
|
|
|
(779.6
|
)%
|
|
$
|
1,600
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
|
|
146.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NM = Not meaningful
|
|
|
(1) |
|
For fiscal 2010, represents the impact of an accounting change
from operating lease treatment to sales-type capital lease
treatment for our OTA finance contracts. See
Note B Restatement of Financial Statements to
our consolidated financial statements for detailed information
regarding the impact of the restatement on fiscal 2010. |
Consolidated
Fiscal
2011 Compared to Fiscal 2010
Contracted Revenue. Total contracted revenue
increased from $73.9 million for fiscal 2010 (which
included $10.0 million of future gross cash flow streams
associated with OTAs and $1.7 million of future potential
revenue streams associated with PPAs) to $103.9 million for
fiscal 2011 (which included $14.6 million of future gross
cash flow streams associated with OTAs and $1.9 million of
future potential revenue streams associated with PPAs), an
increase of $30.0 million, or 41%. We attribute this
improvement in contracted revenue to an increase in orders for
renewable technologies through our Orion Engineered Systems
division and an increase in new customer OTA contracts, along
with increased order activity for our integrated lighting
systems from an improved economic environment during the second
half of fiscal 2011.
43
Revenue. Product revenue increased from
$60.9 million for fiscal 2010 to $86.4 million for
fiscal 2011, an increase of $25.5 million, or 42%. The
increase in product revenue was due to $14.3 million of
revenue from cash sales of renewable energy photovoltaic
systems, or PV, and increased revenue from the sale of energy
goods and management systems through cash sales and OTA
contracts. Service revenue decreased from $7.2 million for
fiscal 2010 to $6.0 million for fiscal 2011, a decrease of
$1.2 million, or 17%. The decrease in service revenue was a
result of the continued percentage increase of total revenue to
our wholesale channels where services are not provided. We
believe that the increase in our OTA revenues,
$10.7 million for fiscal 2011 compared to $5.5 million
for fiscal 2010, has helped to address our customers
capital spending constraints by providing an alternative to the
up-front capital requirements of a cash purchase. Accordingly,
we believe that our OTA financed business will continue to
increase during fiscal 2012, accounting for approximately 15 to
20% of our anticipated total revenue.
Cost of Revenue and Gross Margin. Product cost
of product revenue increased from $40.1 million for fiscal
2010 to $58.3 million for fiscal 2011, an increase of
$18.2 million, or 45%. Cost of service revenue decreased
from $5.3 million for fiscal 2010 to $4.5 million for
fiscal 2011, a decrease of $0.8 million, or 15%. Total
gross margins declined to 32.1% for fiscal 2011 from 33.4% for
fiscal 2010. The decrease in total gross margin in fiscal 2011
was due to the higher mix of renewables revenue with gross
margins of 20.2%. Gross margins from the sale of our HIF energy
management systems were 34.4% for fiscal 2011. The negative
impact from the product mix shift was partially offset by cost
containment efforts through the reduction of direct and indirect
headcounts, improved production efficiencies resulting from the
reengineering of our assembly process, negotiated price
decreases on raw materials and reductions in discretionary
spending.
Operating
Expenses
General and Administrative. Our general and
administrative expenses decreased from $12.8 million for
fiscal 2010 to $11.4 million for fiscal 2011, a decrease of
$1.4 million, or 11%. The decrease was a result of
$0.5 million in reduced compensation costs resulting from
headcount reductions and reduced severance payments, a
$0.3 million reduction in bad debt expense from the prior
year, a $0.2 million decrease in legal expenses, a
$0.2 million decrease in consulting and auditing services
and $0.2 million in discretionary spending reductions.
Sales and Marketing. Our sales and marketing
expenses increased from $12.6 million for fiscal 2010 to
$13.7 million for fiscal 2011, an increase of
$1.1 million, or 9%. The increase was a result
$0.5 million in increased travel costs for customer site
visits, a $0.2 million increase in compensation costs
related to headcount additions during the year, a
$0.2 million in business development expenses related to
our efforts to expand our partner channels, a $0.1 million
increase for advertising and marketing expenses and
$0.1 million for additional technology costs.
Research and Development. Our research and
development expenses increased from $1.9 million for fiscal
2010 to $2.3 million for fiscal 2011, an increase of
$0.4 million, or 21%. The increase in expense for fiscal
2011 was due to increased spending on the development of new
product offerings, including our new exterior lighting and our
LED product initiatives. We also incurred expenses improving our
existing energy management control solutions, including our
recent improvements to our dynamic control devices.
Interest Expense. Our interest expense
increased from $0.3 million for fiscal 2010 to
$0.4 million for fiscal 2011, an increase of
$0.1 million, or 33%. The increase in interest expense for
fiscal 2011 was due to additional debt funding completed during
fiscal 2011 for the purpose of financing our OTA projects. For
fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011, we capitalized $21,000 and $0 of
interest for construction in progress, respectively.
Loss on sale of receivables. Our loss from the
sale of receivables from our OTA contracts increased from
$0.6 million for fiscal 2010 to $1.0 million for
fiscal 2011, an increase of $0.4 million, or 67%.
Dividend and Interest Income. Our interest
income decreased from $0.7 million for fiscal 2010 to
$0.6 million for fiscal 2011, a decrease of
$0.1 million, or 14%. Interest income earned from customer
financed programs was $0.5 million in fiscal 2011 compared
to $0.4 million in fiscal 2010. Interest income related to
investments in fiscal 2011 decreased by $0.2 million as a
result of less cash invested and a decrease in interest rates on
our short-term investments.
44
Income Taxes. Our income tax benefit decreased
from a benefit of $1.0 million for fiscal year 2010 to a
benefit of $0.2 million for fiscal 2011. Our effective
income tax rate for the fiscal year 2010 was a benefit rate of
22.4%, compared to a benefit rate of 17.9% for the fiscal year
2011. During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011, we converted
almost all of our existing incentive stock options, or ISOs, to
non-qualified stock options, or NQSOs. This conversion was
applied retrospectively allowing us to benefit from
$0.6 million of income tax expense related to
non-deductible ISO stock compensation expense that was
previously deferred for income tax purposes. The conversion
reduced our effective tax rate for the full fiscal year to a
benefit rate of 17.9% from a pre-conversion income tax expense
rate of 27.2%. The conversion of ISOs to NQSOs will greatly
reduce the effective tax rate volatility that we have
historically experienced at nominal pre-tax earnings levels. The
change in tax rate versus the prior fiscal year is due to the
difference between taxable losses during fiscal 2010 and the
related impact of the non-deductible stock compensation expense
and taxable income during fiscal 2011, along with the impact of
federal credits available to us.
Fiscal
2010 Compared to Fiscal 2009
Contracted Revenue. Total contracted revenue
increased from $71.6 million, which included
$1.5 million of future gross cash flow streams associated
with OTA contracts, for fiscal 2009 to $73.9 million, which
included $10.0 million of future gross cash flow streams
associated with OTA contracts and $1.7 million of
discounted revenue streams from PPA contracts, for fiscal 2010,
an increase of $2.3 million or 3%.
Revenue. Product revenue decreased from
$63.0 million for fiscal 2009 to $60.9 million for
fiscal 2010, a decrease of $2.1 million or 3%. The decrease
was a result of decreased sales of our HIF lighting systems.
Service revenue decreased from $9.6 million for fiscal 2009
to $7.2 million for fiscal 2010, a decrease of
$2.4 million, or 25%. The decrease in service revenue was a
result of the decreased sales of our HIF lighting systems and
the continued percentage increase of total revenues to our
wholesale channels where services are not provided. Our fiscal
2010 revenues continued to be impacted by a general conservatism
in the marketplace concerning capital spending and purchase
decisions due to continuing adverse economic and credit market
conditions. In the second half of fiscal 2010, we realized a
slight improvement in our order volumes in relation to the first
half of our fiscal 2010.
Cost of Revenue and Gross Margin. Our cost of
product revenue decreased from $42.2 million for fiscal
2009 to $40.1 million for fiscal 2010, a decrease of
$2.1 million, or 5%. Our cost of service revenue decreased
from $6.8 million for fiscal 2009 to $5.3 million for
fiscal 2010, a decrease of $1.5 million, or 23%. Total
gross margin increased from 32.5% for fiscal 2009 to 33.4% for
fiscal 2010. During fiscal 2010, we maintained improvements in
our product gross margins, in spite of the volume decline,
resulting from our efforts to reengineer our assembly processes,
including the implementation of cell manufacturing stations, a
reduction in headcount and a reduction in work hours, and
reductions in discretionary spending and premium costs, like
overtime.
Operating
Expenses
General and Administrative. Our general and
administrative expenses increased from $10.5 million for
fiscal 2009 to $12.8 million for fiscal 2010, an increase
of $2.3 million or 23%. The increase was a result of :
(i) $1.2 million increase for occupancy costs related
to the completion of our new technology center, including
approximately $0.1 million for one-time
start-up
charges; (ii) $0.7 million for legal costs related to
the defense and preliminary settlement of our securities class
action litigation; (iii) $0.6 million in severance
compensation costs and headcount additions related to staff
support in information technology and executive support staff in
human resources and administrative functions;
(iv) $0.3 million in costs related to the write down
of a long-term note receivable and bad debt charges on aged
accounts receivable; and (v) $0.4 million as a result
of a one-time gain on asset disposal in the fiscal 2009 that did
not recur in fiscal 2010. These cost increases were partially
offset by $0.9 million in decreased compensation costs
resulting from headcount reductions and other discretionary
spending reductions.
Sales and Marketing. Our sales and marketing
expenses increased from $11.2 million for fiscal 2009 to
$12.6 million for fiscal 2010, an increase of
$1.4 million, or 12%. The increase was a result of
compensation and benefit costs for additional sales and
marketing personnel. We increased our sales and marketing
headcount to
45
further develop opportunities for our exterior lighting products
within the utility and governmental markets, expanded sales and
sales support personnel dedicated to our in-market sales
programs and added technical expertise for our wireless controls
product lines and our renewable technology initiatives.
Research and Development. Our research and
development expenses were substantially unchanged in fiscal 2010
from fiscal 2009, at approximately $1.9 million. Expenses
incurred in fiscal 2010 related to compensation costs for the
development and support of new products, depreciation expenses
for lab and research equipment and testing costs related to our
new wireless controls, exterior lighting and LED product
initiatives.
Interest Expense. Our interest expense
increased from $0.2 million in fiscal 2009 to
$0.3 million in fiscal 2010, an increase of
$0.1 million, or 50%. The increase in interest expense was
due to the elimination of capitalized interest resulting from
the completion of our corporate technology center. For fiscal
2009 and fiscal 2010, we capitalized $215,000 and $21,000 of
interest for construction in progress, respectively.
Loss on sale of receivables. Our loss from the
sale of receivables from our OTA contracts increased from $0 for
fiscal 2009 to $0.6 million for fiscal 2010.
Extinguishment of Debt. In fiscal 2010,
$250,000 of debt under equipment loans from our local government
was forgiven related to our creation and retention of certain
types and numbers of jobs at our manufacturing facility.
Dividend and Interest Income. Our dividend and
interest income decreased from fiscal 2009 to fiscal 2010 as a
result of declining market interest rates and the reduction in
our cash balances year over year due to cash used to finance our
OTA program and our investment in wireless control inventory
components.
Income Taxes. Our income tax expense decreased
in fiscal 2010 from fiscal 2009 due to the reduction in our
taxable income. Our effective income tax rate for fiscal 2009
was 64.5% compared to a benefit rate of (22.4)% for fiscal 2010.
The change in our effective rate was due to a reduction of
benefits for non-deductible stock compensation expense from
prior ISO grants and the impact of an increase in our state
valuation allowance reserve.
Energy
Management Segment
The following table summarizes the Energy Management segment
operating results:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended March 31,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
59, 649
|
|
|
$
|
71,866
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
1,203
|
|
|
|
5,754
|
|
Operating Margin
|
|
|
2.0
|
%
|
|
|
8.0
|
%
|
Energy Management segment revenue increased from
$59.6 million for fiscal 2010 to $71.9 million for
fiscal 2011, an increase of $12.3 million, or 21%. The
increase was due to increased sales of our HIF lighting systems
to our national account and wholesale customers, increased
revenue from a greater number of OTA contracts completed and
increased revenue from new product offerings, including exterior
lighting, dynamic wireless controls and LED fixtures.
Energy Management segment operating income increased from
$1.2 million for fiscal 2010 to $5.8 million for
fiscal 2011, an increase of $4.6 million, or 383% The
increase in operating income for fiscal 2011 was a result of the
increased revenue and improved gross margins on HIF lighting
product sales due to cost reduction efforts to reduce
manufacturing labor costs and plant reengineering of our
manufacturing processes to improve production efficiencies.
46
Engineered
Systems Segment
The following table summarizes the Engineered Systems segment
operating results:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$
|
8,423
|
|
|
$
|
20,592
|
|
Operating (loss) income
|
|
|
(471
|
)
|
|
|
1,371
|
|
Operating Margin
|
|
|
(5.6
|
)%
|
|
|
6.7
|
%
|
Engineered Systems segment revenue increased from
$8.4 million for fiscal 2010 to $20.6 million for
fiscal 2011, an increase of $12.2 million, or 144%. The
increase was due to an increase in the number of and the
relative size of the renewable PV systems sold during fiscal
2011 versus the prior year. During the first half of fiscal
2010, our Engineered Systems segment efforts were primarily
focused on research of renewable technology products and
understanding if there was a market for these technologies
within our customer base.
Engineered Systems segment operating income increased from a
$0.5 million loss for fiscal 2010 to $1.4 million of
operating income for fiscal 2011, an increase of
$1.9 million, an increase of 391%. The increase in
operating income for fiscal 2011 was a result of the increased
revenue volume and resulting contribution margin from sales of
solar renewable energy systems.
Corporate
and Other
Corporate and other operating loss decreased from
$5.3 million for fiscal 2010 to $4.9 million for
fiscal 2011, a decrease of $0.4 million, or 8%. The
decrease in operating loss was primarily attributable to a
reduction in legal expenses incurred.
47
Quarterly
Results of Operations
The following tables present our unaudited quarterly results of
operations for the last eight fiscal quarters in the period
ended March 31, 2011 (i) on an absolute dollar basis
(in thousands) and (ii) as a percentage of total revenue
for the applicable fiscal quarter. You should read the following
tables in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements
and related notes contained elsewhere in this
Form 10-K.
As described above in managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and
Note B− Restatement of Financial Statements to our
consolidated financial statements, our audited consolidated
financial statements for our fiscal year ended March 31,
2010 have been restated to reflect our change of accounting for
our OTA contracts from operating lease treatment to sales-type
capital lease treatment. In our opinion, the unaudited financial
information presented below has been prepared on the same basis
as our audited consolidated financial statements, and includes
all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring
adjustments, that we consider necessary for a fair presentation
of our operating results for the fiscal quarters presented. We
have restated each of the quarterly consolidated financial
statements for the periods ended June 30, 2009 through
December 31, 2010 to reclassify our transactions under our
OTAs as sales-type leases instead of as operating leases.
Operating results for any fiscal quarter are not necessarily
indicative of the results for any future fiscal quarters or for
a full fiscal year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Three Months Ended
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
Sept. 30,
|
|
|
Dec. 31,
|
|
|
Mar. 31,
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
Sept. 30,
|
|
|
Dec. 31,
|
|
|
Mar. 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, unaudited)
|
|
|
Product revenue
|
|
$
|
11,924
|
|
|
$
|
15,219
|
|
|
$
|
18,737
|
|
|
$
|
15,002
|
|
|
$
|
15,758
|
|
|
$
|
15,086
|
|
|
$
|
28,048
|
|
|
$
|
27,551
|
|
Service revenue
|
|
|
1,951
|
|
|
|
856
|
|
|
|
2,090
|
|
|
|
2,294
|
|
|
|
1,219
|
|
|
|
767
|
|
|
|
2,008
|
|
|
|
2,021
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue
|
|
|
13,875
|
|
|
|
16,075
|
|
|
|
20,827
|
|
|
|
17,296
|
|
|
|
16,977
|
|
|
|
15,853
|
|
|
|
30,056
|
|
|
|
29,572
|
|
Cost of product revenue
|
|
|
8,748
|
|
|
|
10,122
|
|
|
|
11,860
|
|
|
|
9,333
|
|
|
|
10,307
|
|
|
|
9,745
|
|
|
|
19,228
|
|
|
|
18,971
|
|
Cost of service revenue
|
|
|
1,255
|
|
|
|
632
|
|
|
|
1,568
|
|
|
|
1,811
|
|
|
|
917
|
|
|
|
498
|
|
|
|
1,674
|
|
|
|
1,410
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost of revenue
|
|
|
10,003
|
|
|
|
10,754
|
|
|
|
13,428
|
|
|
|
11,144
|
|
|
|
11,224
|
|
|
|
10,243
|
|
|
|
20,902
|
|
|
|
20,381
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
3,872
|
|
|
|
5,321
|
|
|
|
7,399
|
|
|
|
6,152
|
|
|
|
5,753
|
|
|
|
5,610
|
|
|
|
9,154
|
|
|
|
9,191
|
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
3,163
|
|
|
|
3,143
|
|
|
|
3,051
|
|
|
|
3,479
|
|
|
|
2,945
|
|
|
|
2,988
|
|
|
|
2,709
|
|
|
|
2,789
|
|
Sales and marketing expenses
|
|
|
3,152
|
|
|
|
2,962
|
|
|
|
3,063
|
|
|
|
3,420
|
|
|
|
3,590
|
|
|
|
3,299
|
|
|
|
3,235
|
|
|
|
3,616
|
|
Research and development expenses
|
|
|
419
|
|
|
|
491
|
|
|
|
404
|
|
|
|
576
|
|
|
|
610
|
|
|
|
573
|
|
|
|
614
|
|
|
|
536
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from operations
|
|
|
(2,862
|
)
|
|
|
(1,275
|
)
|
|
|
881
|
|
|
|
(1,323
|
)
|
|
|
(1,392
|
)
|
|
|
(1,250
|
)
|
|
|
2,596
|
|
|
|
2,250
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
54
|
|
|
|
73
|
|
|
|
66
|
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
98
|
|
|
|
183
|
|
Loss on sale of asset
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
561
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,012
|
|
Extinguishment of debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
250
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividend and interest income
|
|
|
236
|
|
|
|
147
|
|
|
|
157
|
|
|
|
130
|
|
|
|
93
|
|
|
|
153
|
|
|
|
189
|
|
|
|
136
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income tax
|
|
|
(2,682
|
)
|
|
|
(1,201
|
)
|
|
|
972
|
|
|
|
(1,567
|
)
|
|
|
(1,369
|
)
|
|
|
(1,152
|
)
|
|
|
2,687
|
|
|
|
1,191
|
|
Income tax expense (benefit)
|
|
|
(600
|
)
|
|
|
(269
|
)
|
|
|
218
|
|
|
|
(352
|
)
|
|
|
(833
|
)
|
|
|
(1,692
|
)
|
|
|
1,931
|
|
|
|
351
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
(2,080
|
)
|
|
$
|
(932
|
)
|
|
$
|
754
|
|
|
$
|
(1,215
|
)
|
|
$
|
(536
|
)
|
|
$
|
540
|
|
|
$
|
756
|
|
|
$
|
840
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
Sept. 30,
|
|
|
Dec. 31,
|
|
|
Mar. 31,
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
Sept. 30,
|
|
|
Dec. 31,
|
|
|
Mar. 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
Product revenue
|
|
|
85.9
|
%
|
|
|
94.7
|
%
|
|
|
90.0
|
%
|
|
|
86.7
|
%
|
|
|
92.8
|
%
|
|
|
95.2
|
%
|
|
|
93.3
|
%
|
|
|
93.2
|
%
|
Service revenue
|
|
|
14.1
|
%
|
|
|
5.3
|
%
|
|
|
10.0
|
%
|
|
|
13.3
|
%
|
|
|
7.2
|
%
|
|
|
4.8
|
%
|
|
|
6.7
|
%
|
|
|
6.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
Cost of product revenue
|
|
|
63.0
|
%
|
|
|
63.0
|
%
|
|
|
56.9
|
%
|
|
|
54.0
|
%
|
|
|
60.7
|
%
|
|
|
61.5
|
%
|
|
|
64.0
|
%
|
|
|
64.2
|
%
|
Cost of service revenue
|
|
|
9.0
|
%
|
|
|
3.9
|
%
|
|
|
7.5
|
%
|
|
|
10.4
|
%
|
|
|
5.4
|
%
|
|
|
3.1
|
%
|
|
|
5.6
|
%
|
|
|
4.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost of revenue
|
|
|
72.0
|
%
|
|
|
66.9
|
%
|
|
|
64.5
|
%
|
|
|
64.4
|
%
|
|
|
66.1
|
%
|
|
|
64.6
|
%
|
|
|
69.5
|
%
|
|
|
68.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin
|
|
|
28.0
|
%
|
|
|
33.1
|
%
|
|
|
35.5
|
%
|
|
|
35.6
|
%
|
|
|
33.9
|
%
|
|
|
35.4
|
%
|
|
|
30.5
|
%
|
|
|
31.1
|
%
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
22.8
|
%
|
|
|
19.6
|
%
|
|
|
14.6
|
%
|
|
|
20.1
|
%
|
|
|
17.3
|
%
|
|
|
18.8
|
%
|
|
|
9.0
|
%
|
|
|
9.4
|
%
|
Sales and marketing expenses
|
|
|
22.8
|
%
|
|
|
18.4
|
%
|
|
|
14.7
|
%
|
|
|
19.8
|
%
|
|
|
21.1
|
%
|
|
|
20.8
|
%
|
|
|
10.8
|
%
|
|
|
12.2
|
%
|
Research and development expenses
|
|
|
3.0
|
%
|
|
|
3.1
|
%
|
|
|
1.9
|
%
|
|
|
3.3
|
%
|
|
|
3.6
|
%
|
|
|
3.6
|
%
|
|
|
2.0
|
%
|
|
|
1.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from operations
|
|
|
(20.6
|
)%
|
|
|
(7.9
|
)%
|
|
|
4.2
|
%
|
|
|
(7.6
|
) %
|
|
|
(8.2
|
)%
|
|
|
(7.9
|
) %
|
|
|
8.6
|
%
|
|
|
7.6
|
%
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
|
|
0.5
|
%
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
|
0.6
|
%
|
Loss on sale of asset
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
(3.2
|
)%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
(3.4
|
)%
|
Extinguishment of debt
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
Dividend and interest income
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
|
|
0.9
|
%
|
|
|
0.8
|
%
|
|
|
0.7
|
%
|
|
|
0.5
|
%
|
|
|
0.9
|
%
|
|
|
0.6
|
%
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
Income (loss) before income tax
|
|
|
(19.3
|
)%
|
|
|
(7.5
|
)%
|
|
|
4.7
|
%
|
|
|
(9.1
|
)%
|
|
|
(8.1
|
)%
|
|
|
(7.3
|
)%
|
|
|
8.9
|
%
|
|
|
4.0
|
%
|
Income tax expense (benefit)
|
|
|
(4.3
|
)%
|
|
|
(1.7
|
)%
|
|
|
1.0
|
%
|
|
|
(2.1
|
)%
|
|
|
(4.9
|
)%
|
|
|
(10.7
|
)%
|
|
|
6.4
|
%
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
(15.0
|
)%
|
|
|
(5.8
|
)%
|
|
|
3.7
|
%
|
|
|
(7.0
|
)%
|
|
|
(3.2
|
)%
|
|
|
3.4
|
%
|
|
|
2.5
|
%
|
|
|
2.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48
Our total revenue can fluctuate from quarter to quarter
depending on the purchasing decisions of our customers and our
overall level of sales activity. Historically, our customers
have tended to increase their purchases near the beginning or
end of their capital budget cycles, which tend to correspond to
the beginning or end of the calendar year. As a result, we have
in the past experienced lower relative total revenue in our
fiscal first and second quarters and higher relative total
revenue in our fiscal third quarter. These seasonal fluctuations
have been largely offset by our customers decisions to
initiate multiple facility roll-outs. We expect that there may
be future variations in our quarterly total revenue depending on
our level of national account roll-out projects and wholesale
sales. Our results for any particular fiscal quarter may not be
indicative of results for other fiscal quarters or an entire
fiscal year.
Liquidity
and Capital Resources
Overview
On December 24, 2007, we completed our initial public
offering, or IPO. Net proceeds to us from our IPO were
approximately $78.6 million in net proceeds (net of
underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses).
We invested the net proceeds from our IPO in money market funds
and short-term government agency bonds, subsequently using
approximately $48.8 million of the net proceeds for working
capital, capital expenditures and general corporate purposes,
along with $29.8 million used to repurchase shares of our
common stock into treasury.
We had approximately $11.6 million in cash and cash
equivalents and $1.0 million in short-term investments as
of March 31, 2011 compared to $23.4 million in cash
and cash equivalents and $1.0 million in short-term
investments as of March 31, 2010. Our cash equivalents are
invested in money market accounts and bank certificates of
deposits with maturities of less than 90 days and an
average yield of 0.2%. Our short-term investment account
consists of a bank certificate of deposit in the amount of
$1.0 million with an expiration date of June 2011 and a
yield of 0.5%.
During fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011, we funded $2.7 million
and $2.3 million, respectively, for our investment in
company owned equipment under our PPA projects. We do not expect
to use our own cash in the future to fund PPA project
opportunities and are investigating financing options with third
parties to fund future solar projects. We expect that our volume
of OTA financed projects will continue to increase in the future
and that the cash required to fund these projects will continue
to increase as well. We also recognize that our ability to
increase revenues through these finance programs will continue
to deplete our cash resources if we do not secure additional
funding sources. We are exploring potential financing
alternatives to support the expected growth of our OTA contract
volumes. In February 2011, we reengaged a third party finance
company to underwrite and, upon successful completion and
customer acceptance, purchase outright certain OTA customer
contracts. This financing commitment will allow us to provide
immediate capital for completed OTA projects. In fiscal 2011, we
completed two separate debt financing transactions with a
regional bank to provide funding for a pool of individual OTA
contracts that we hold the contracts for. We believe that having
multiple funding sources for our internally held OTA contracts
will greatly reduce the cash strain created by funding these
contracts ourselves.
The return to a recessionary state of the global economy could
potentially have negative effects on our near-term liquidity and
capital resources, including slower collections of receivables,
delays of existing order deliveries and postponements of
incoming orders. However, we believe that our existing cash and
cash equivalents, our anticipated cash flows from operating
activities and our borrowing capacity under our revolving credit
facility will be sufficient to meet our anticipated cash needs
for the next 12 months. As of March 31, 2011, we were
in a strong financial position with $12.6 million in cash
and short-term investments. For that reason, we do not
anticipate drawing on our revolving line of credit nor do we
expect to use significant amounts of our cash balances for
operating activities during fiscal 2012. Our future working
capital requirements thereafter will depend on many factors,
including our rate of revenue, our rate of OTA growth and our
ability to obtain funding for our OTA contracts, our rate of
investment into our financed sales programs, our introduction of
new products and services and enhancements to our existing
energy management system, the timing and extent of expansions of
our sales force and other administrative and production
personnel, the timing and extent of advertising and promotional
campaigns, and our research and development activities.
49
Cash
Flows
The following table summarizes our cash flows for our fiscal
2009, fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Operating activities
|
|
$
|
3,239
|
|
|
$
|
(10,718
|
)
|
|
$
|
(8,737
|
)
|
Investing activities
|
|
|
(17,873
|
)
|
|
|
(3,070
|
)
|
|
|
(5,702
|
)
|
Financing activities
|
|
|
(27,515
|
)
|
|
|
989
|
|
|
|
2,635
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
(42,149
|
)
|
|
$
|
(12,799
|
)
|
|
$
|
(11,804
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flows Related to Operating
Activities. Cash used in operating activities
primarily consists of net income (loss) adjusted for certain
non-cash items including depreciation and amortization,
stock-based compensation expenses, income taxes and the effect
of changes in working capital and other activities.
Cash used in operating activities for fiscal 2011 was
$8.7 million and consisted of net cash of
$14.8 million used for working capital purposes offset by
net income of $1.6 million and adjusted for non-cash
expense items of $4.5 million. Cash used for working
capital consisted of an increase of $11.7 million in
accounts receivable due to the increase in revenue and a
$3.5 million increase in inventory for purchases described
in the section below titled Working Capital. Cash
provided by working capital included a $4.7 million
increase in accounts payable related to payment terms on
inventory purchases during the fiscal 2011 fourth quarter.
Cash used in operating activities for fiscal 2010 was
$10.7 million and consisted of net cash of
$11.2 million used for working capital purposes and a net
loss of $3.5 million, offset by non-cash expense items of
$4.0 million. Cash used for working capital purposes
consisted of an increase of $4.6 million in trade
receivables and a $6.4 million increase in inventories
resulting from purchases of ballast and wireless component
inventories. We increased our level of inventory for these
components due to longer lead times and supply availability
concerns for inventory components shipping out of Asia. These
amounts were offset by an increase of $1.8 million in
accrued expenses resulting from increases in accrued severance
costs, increases in accrued legal expenses and increased deposit
payments for OTA contracts.
Cash provided by operating activities for fiscal 2009 was
$3.2 million and consisted of net cash of $1.1 million
used for working capital purposes and net income adjusted
non-cash expenses of $4.3 million. The $4.6 million
increase in cash provided from operating activities in fiscal
2009 compared to fiscal 2008 was primarily due to improved
collections of our accounts receivable.
Cash Flows Related to Investing
Activities. Cash used in investing activities was
$17.9 million, $3.1 million and $5.7 million for
fiscal 2009, 2010 and 2011, respectively. In fiscal 2011, we
invested a net $2.3 million in equipment related to our PPA
finance programs, $3.2 million for capital improvements
related to our information technology systems, renewable
technologies, manufacturing and tooling improvements and
facility investments and $0.2 million for patent
investments. In fiscal 2010, we invested $5.6 million in
capital expenditures related to the completion of our new
corporate technology center, operating and customer relationship
software systems, a photovoltaic solar generated power system
and for purchases of manufacturing equipment and tooling.
Additionally, we invested $2.7 million in equipment related
to our PPA finance programs and $0.3 million for the
development of our intellectual property. We generated cash flow
from investing activities of $5.5 million from the sale of
short-term investments. In fiscal 2009, we invested
$13.1 million in capital expenditures in our new corporate
technology center, operating software systems, improvements in
our manufacturing facility and for purchases of equipment and
tooling. We also invested $4.1 million in short term
certificate of deposits and spent $1.0 million for the
purchase of intellectual property rights from an executive,
partially offset by net proceeds from the sale of an investment
of $0.5 million.
Cash Flows Related to Financing
Activities. Cash provided by financing activities
was $2.6 million for fiscal 2011. This included
$3.7 million in new debt borrowings to fund OTA and
capital projects, $0.5 million received from stock option
and warrant exercises and $0.5 million for excess tax
benefits from stock based compensation. Cash flows used in
financing activities included $2.0 million for repayment of
long-term debt and $0.1 million for costs related to our
new credit agreement.
50
Cash provided by financing activities was $1.0 million for
fiscal 2010. This included proceeds of $2.0 million
received from stock option and warrant exercises,
$0.2 million for proceeds from long-term debt and
$0.1 million for excess tax benefits from stock based
compensation. Cash used in financing activities included
$0.8 million for debt principal payments and
$0.5 million used for common share repurchases.
Cash used in financing activities was $27.5 million for
fiscal 2009. The use of cash was due to $29.3 million used
for common share repurchases and $0.9 million of debt
principal payments, offset by $1.5 million in proceeds from
the exercise of common stock options and warrants and
$1.1 million for the impact of deferred taxes on our stock
based compensation.
Working
Capital
Our net working capital as of March 31, 2011, was
$56.9 million, consisting of $73.1 million in current
assets and $16.2 million in current liabilities. Our net
working capital as of March 31, 2010 was
$59.2 million, consisting of $71.7 million in current
assets and $12.5 million in current liabilities. Our
accounts receivables increased from our prior fiscal year end by
$11.7 million as a result of our increased revenues during
the second half of fiscal year 2011, as well as an increase in
finance receivables related to OTA contracts. Our inventories
increased from our fiscal 2010 year end by
$3.5 million due to an increase in the level of our
wireless control inventories of $1.4 million based upon our
wireless control initiatives and a $2.6 million increase in
ballast component inventories to avoid potential supply
disruptions. The vast majority of our wireless components are
assembled overseas and require longer delivery lead times. In
addition, overseas suppliers require deposit payments at time of
purchase order.
During fiscal 2011, we continued to increase our inventory
levels of key electronic components, specifically electronic
ballasts, to avoid potential shortages and customer service
issues as a result of lengthening supply lead times and product
availability issues. We continue to monitor supply side concerns
within the electronic components market and believe that our
current inventory levels are sufficient to protect us against
the risk of being unable to deliver product as specified by our
customers requirements. We are continually monitoring
supply side concerns through conversations with our key vendors
and currently believe that supply availability concerns appear
to have moderated, but have not diminished to the point where we
anticipate reducing safety stock to the levels that existed
prior to the electrical components supply issues. We also remain
concerned that the recent tragic events in Japan could lead to
additional supply chain disruptions of these important
electronic components.
We generally attempt to maintain at least a three-month supply
of on-hand inventory of purchased components and raw materials
to meet anticipated demand, as well as to reduce our risk of
unexpected raw material or component shortages or supply
interruptions. Our accounts receivables, inventory and payables
may increase to the extent our revenue and order levels increase.
Indebtedness
On June 30, 2010, we entered into a new credit agreement,
which we refer to herein as the Credit Agreement, with JP Morgan
Chase Bank, N.A., whom we refer to herein as JP Morgan. The
Credit Agreement replaced our former credit agreement.
The Credit Agreement provides for a revolving credit facility,
which we refer to herein as the Credit Facility, that matures on
June 30, 2012. Borrowings under the Credit Facility are
limited to (i) $15.0 million or (ii) during
periods in which the outstanding principal balance of
outstanding loans under the Credit Facility is greater than
$5.0 million, the lesser of (A) $15.0 million or
(B) the sum of 75% of the outstanding principal balance of
certain accounts receivable and 45% of certain inventory. We
also may cause JP Morgan to issue letters of credit for our
account in the aggregate principal amount of up to
$2.0 million, with the dollar amount of each issued letter
of credit counting against the overall limit on borrowings under
the Credit Facility. As of March 31, 2011, we had
outstanding letters of credit totaling $1.7 million,
primarily for securing collateral requirements under equipment
operating leases. We had no outstanding borrowings under the
Credit Facility as of March 31, 2011. We were in compliance
with all of our covenants under the Credit Agreement as of
March 31, 2011.
The Credit Agreement is secured by a first lien security
interest in our accounts receivable, inventory and general
intangibles, and a second lien priority in our equipment and
fixtures. All OTAs, PPAs, leases, supply
51
agreements
and/or
similar agreements relating to solar photovoltaic and wind
turbine systems or facilities, as well as all of our accounts
receivable and assets related to the foregoing, are excluded
from these liens.
We must pay a fee of 0.25% on the average daily unused amount of
the Credit Facility and a fee of 2.00% on the daily average face
amount of undrawn issued letters of credit. The fee on unused
amounts is waived if we or our affiliates maintain funds on
deposit with JP Morgan or its affiliates above a specified
amount. We did not meet the deposit requirement to waive the
unused fee as of March 31, 2011.
In addition to our Credit Facility, we also have other existing
long-term indebtedness and obligations under various debt
instruments, including pursuant to a bank term note, a bank
first mortgage, a debenture to a community development
organization, a federal block grant loan, two city industrial
revolving loans and two notes for funding OTA contracts. As of
March 31, 2011, the total amount of principal outstanding
on these various obligations was $5.4 million. These
obligations have varying maturity dates between 2012 and 2024
and bear interest at annual rates of between 2.0% and 7.0%. The
weighted average annual interest rate of such obligations as of
March 31, 2011 was 5.7%. Based on interest rates in effect
as of March 31, 2011, we expect that our total debt service
payments on such obligations for fiscal 2012, including
scheduled principal, lease and interest payments, but excluding
any repayment of borrowings on the Credit Facility, will
approximate $1.4 million. All of these obligations are
subject to security interests on our assets. Several of these
obligations have covenants, such as customary financial and
restrictive covenants, including maintenance of a minimum debt
service coverage ratio; a minimum current ratio; quarterly
rolling net income requirement; limitations on executive
compensation and advances; limits on capital expenditures per
year; limits on distributions; and restrictions on our ability
to make loans, advances, extensions of credit, investments,
capital contributions, incur additional indebtedness, create
liens, guaranty obligations, merge or consolidate or undergo a
change in control. As of March 31, 2011, we were in
compliance with all such covenants, as amended.
Capital
Spending
Over the past three fiscal years, we have made capital
expenditures primarily for general corporate purposes for our
corporate headquarters and technology center, production
equipment and tooling and for information technology systems.
Our capital expenditures totaled $3.2 million,
$5.6 million, and $13.1 million in fiscal 2011, 2010
and 2009, respectively. We plan to incur approximately $2.5 to
$3.0 million in capital expenditures in fiscal 2012,
excluding capital to support OTA contracts. Our capital spending
plans predominantly consist of further cost improvements in our
manufacturing facility, improvements to our building and
headquarters, new product development and investment in
information technology systems. We expect to finance these
capital expenditures primarily through our existing cash,
equipment secured loans and leases, to the extent needed, or by
using our available capacity under our Credit Facility.
Contractual
Obligations
Information regarding our known contractual obligations of the
types described below as of March 31, 2011 is set forth in
the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments Due By Period
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less than
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More than
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1 Year
|
|
|
1-3 Years
|
|
|
3-5 Years
|
|
|
5 Years
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Bank debt obligations
|
|
$
|
5,362
|
|
|
$
|
1,137
|
|
|
$
|
2,168
|
|
|
$
|
1,427
|
|
|
$
|
630
|
|
Cash interest payments on debt
|
|
|
1,019
|
|
|
|
276
|
|
|
|
292
|
|
|
|
140
|
|
|
|
311
|
|
Operating lease obligations
|
|
|
9,325
|
|
|
|
1,748
|
|
|
|
2,284
|
|
|
|
1,797
|
|
|
|
3,496
|
|
Purchase order and capital expenditure commitments(1)
|
|
|
14,457
|
|
|
|
11,595
|
|
|
|
2,862
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
30,163
|
|
|
$
|
14,756
|
|
|
$
|
7,606
|
|
|
$
|
3,364
|
|
|
$
|
4,437
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Reflects non-cancellable purchase commitments in the amount of
$14.4 million for certain inventory items entered into in
order to secure better pricing and ensure materials on hand. |
52
The table of contractual obligations and commitments does not
include our unrecognized tax benefits which were
$0.4 million at March 31, 2011. We have a high degree
of uncertainty regarding the timing of any adjustments to these
unrecognized benefits. Furthermore, we believe that any negative
impact from future tax audits would result in a minimal cash
liability due to our net operating loss carryforwards.
Off-Balance
Sheet Arrangements
We have no off-balance sheet arrangements.
Inflation
Our results from operations have not been, and we do not expect
them to be, materially affected by inflation.
Critical
Accounting Policies and Estimates
The discussion and analysis of our financial condition and
results of operations is based upon our consolidated financial
statements, which have been prepared in accordance with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.
The preparation of our consolidated financial statements
requires us to make certain estimates and judgments that affect
our reported assets, liabilities, revenue and expenses, and our
related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. We
re-evaluate our estimates on an ongoing basis, including those
related to revenue recognition, inventory valuation, the
collectability of receivables, stock-based compensation,
warranty reserves and income taxes. We base our estimates on
historical experience and on various assumptions that we believe
to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results may
differ from these estimates. A summary of our critical
accounting policies is set forth below.
Revenue Recognition. We recognize revenue when
the following criteria have been met: there is persuasive
evidence of an arrangement; delivery has occurred and title has
passed to the customer; the sales price is fixed and
determinable and no further obligation exists; and
collectability is reasonably assured. The majority of our
revenue is recognized when products are shipped to a customer or
when services are completed and acceptance provisions, if any,
have been met. In certain of our contracts, we provide multiple
deliverables. We record the revenue associated with each element
of these arrangements by allocating the total contract revenue
to each element based on their relative selling prices. In such
circumstances, we use a hierarchy to determine the selling price
to be used for allocating revenue to deliverables:
(1) vendor-specific objective evidence, or VSOE, of
fair value, if available, (2) third-party evidence, or
TPE of selling price if VSOE is not available, and
(3) best estimate of the selling price if neither VSOE nor
TPE is available. We established VSOE of selling price for our
HIF lighting and energy management system products using the
price charged for a deliverable when sold separately. We
determine the selling price for installation and recycling
services and for solar renewable product and services using
managements best estimate of selling price. We consider
external and internal factors including, but not limited to,
pricing practices, margin objectives, competition, geographies
in which we offer our products and services, internal costs, and
the scope and size of projects. Additionally, we offer our OTA
sales-type financing program under which we finance the
customers purchase of our energy management systems. Our
OTA contracts are sales-type capital leases under GAAP and we
record revenue at the net present value of the future payments
at the time customer acceptance of the installed and operating
system is complete. Our OTA contracts under this sales-type
financing are either structured with a fixed term, typically
60 months, and a bargain purchase option at the end of
term, or are one year in duration and, at the completion of the
initial one-year term, provide for (i) one to four
automatic one-year renewals at agreed upon pricing; (ii) an
early buyout for cash; or (iii) the return of the equipment
at the customers expense. The revenue that we are entitled
to receive from the sale of our lighting fixtures under our OTA
financing program is fixed and is based on the cost of the
lighting fixtures and applicable profit margin. Our revenue from
agreements entered into under this program is not dependent upon
our customers actual energy savings. Upon completion of
the installation, we may choose to sell the future cash flows
and residual rights to the equipment on a non-recourse basis to
an unrelated third party finance company in exchange for cash
and future payments.
Deferred revenue or deferred costs are recorded for project
sales consisting of multiple elements, where the criteria for
revenue recognition have not been met. The majority of our
deferred revenue relates to investment tax grants received for
solar asset projects, advance customer billings or to prepaid
services to be provided at
53
determined future dates. As of March 31, 2010 and 2011, our
deferred revenue was $0.5 million and $2.0 million,
respectively. Deferred costs on product are recorded as a
current asset as project completions occur within a few months.
As of March 31, 2010 and 2011, our deferred costs were
$1.0 million and $0.5 million, respectively.
Inventories. Inventories are stated at the
lower of cost or market value and include raw materials, work in
process and finished goods. Items are removed from inventory
using the
first-in,
first-out method. Work in process inventories are comprised of
raw materials that have been converted into components for final
assembly. Inventory amounts include the cost to manufacture the
item, such as the cost of raw materials and related freight,
labor and other applied overhead costs. We review our inventory
for obsolescence and marketability. If the estimated market
value, which is based upon assumptions about future demand and
market conditions, falls below cost, then the inventory value is
reduced to its market value. Our inventory obsolescence reserves
at March 31, 2010 and 2011 were $0.8 million and
$0.8 million.
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts. We perform
ongoing evaluations of our customers and continuously monitor
collections and payments and estimate an allowance for doubtful
accounts based upon the aging of the underlying receivables, our
historical experience with write-offs and specific customer
collection issues that we have identified. While such credit
losses have historically been within our expectations, and we
believe appropriate reserves have been established, we may not
adequately predict future credit losses. If the financial
condition of our customers were to deteriorate and result in an
impairment of their ability to make payments, additional
allowances might be required which would result in additional
general and administrative expense in the period such
determination is made. Our allowance for doubtful accounts was
$0.4 million and $0.4 million at March 31, 2010
and March 31, 2011.
Investments. Our accounting and disclosures
for short-term investments are in accordance with the
requirements of the Fair Value Measurements and Disclosure,
Financial Instrument, and Investments: Debt and Security Topics
of the FASB Accounting Standards Codification. The Fair Value
Measurements and Disclosure Topic defines fair value,
establishes a framework for measuring fair value under GAAP and
requires certain disclosures about fair value measurements. Fair
value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an
asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the
principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability
in an orderly transaction between market participants on the
measurement date. Valuation techniques used to measure fair
value must maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize
the use of unobservable inputs. GAAP describes a fair value
hierarchy based on the following three levels of inputs, of
which the first two are considered observable and the last
unobservable, that may be used to measure fair value:
Level 1 Quoted prices in active markets for
identical assets or liabilities.
Level 2 Inputs other than Level 1 that are
observable, either directly or indirectly, such as quoted prices
for similar assets or liabilities; quoted prices in markets that
are not active; or other inputs that are observable or can be
corroborated by observable market data for substantially the
full term of the assets or liabilities.
Level 3 Unobservable inputs that are supported
by little or no market activity and that are significant to the
fair value of the assets or liabilities.
As of March 31, 2010 and 2011, our financial assets were
measured at fair value employing level 1 inputs.
Stock-Based Compensation. We have historically
issued stock options to our employees, executive officers and
directors. We adopted the provisions of ASC 718,
Compensation Stock Compensation, which
requires us to expense the estimated fair value of employee
stock options and similar awards based on the fair value of the
award on the date of grant. Compensation costs for options
granted are recognized in earnings, net of estimated
forfeitures, on a straight-line basis over the requisite service
period.
54
The fair value of each option for financial reporting purposes
was estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes
option-pricing model with the following assumptions used for
grants:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended March 31,
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
Weighted average expected term
|
|
|
5.7 years
|
|
|
|
6.6 years
|
|
|
|
5.7 years
|
|
Risk-free interest rate
|
|
|
3.01
|
%
|
|
|
2.68
|
%
|
|
|
2.14%
|
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
60
|
%
|
|
|
60
|
%
|
|
|
60%-74.8%
|
|
Expected forfeiture rate
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
11.4%
|
|
The Black-Scholes option-pricing model requires the use of
certain assumptions, including fair value, expected term,
risk-free interest rate, expected volatility, expected
dividends, and expected forfeiture rate to calculate the fair
value of stock-based payment awards.
We estimated the expected term of our stock options based on the
vesting term of our options and expected exercise behavior.
Our risk-free interest rate was based on the implied yield
available on United States treasury zero-coupon issues as of the
option grant date with a remaining term approximately equal to
the expected life of the option.
For fiscal 2009 and fiscal 2010, we determined volatility based
on an analysis of a peer group of public companies due to a
limited history of trading of our common stock. For fiscal 2011,
we determined volatility based upon the volatility of our common
share price as we determined that we now had sufficient
information regarding the trading volatility of our common stock.
As required by our 2004 Stock and Incentive Awards Plan, since
the closing of our IPO in December 2007, we have solely used the
closing sale price of our common shares on the NYSE Amex or the
NASDAQ Global Market on the date of grant to establish the
exercise price of our stock options.
We recognized stock-based compensation expense under
ASC 718 of $1.6 million for fiscal 2009,
$1.5 million for fiscal 2010 and $1.3 million for
fiscal 2011. As of March 31, 2011, $4.0 million of
total stock option compensation cost was expected to be
recognized by us over a weighted average period of
6.6 years. We expect to recognize $1.3 million of
stock-based compensation expense in fiscal 2012 based on our
stock options outstanding as of March 31, 2011. This
expense will increase further to the extent we have granted, or
will grant, additional stock options in the future.
Common Stock Warrants. As of March 31,
2011, warrants were outstanding to purchase a total of
38,980 shares of our common stock at weighted average
exercise prices of $2.25 per share. These warrants were valued
using a Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following
assumptions: (i) contractual terms of five years;
(ii) weighted average risk-free interest rates of 4.35% to
4.62%; (iii) expected volatility ranging between 50% and
60%; and (iv) dividend yields of 0%.
Accounting for Income Taxes. As part of the
process of preparing our consolidated financial statements, we
are required to determine our income taxes in each of the
jurisdictions in which we operate. This process involves
estimating our actual current tax expenses, together with
assessing temporary differences resulting from recognition of
items for income tax and accounting purposes. These differences
result in deferred tax assets and liabilities, which are
included within our consolidated balance sheet. We must then
assess the likelihood that our deferred tax assets will be
recovered from future taxable income and, to the extent we
believe that recovery is not likely, establish a valuation
allowance. To the extent we establish a valuation allowance or
increase this allowance in a period, we must reflect this
increase as an expense within the tax provision in our
statements of operations.
Our judgment is required in determining our provision for income
taxes, our deferred tax assets and liabilities, and any
valuation allowance recorded against our net deferred tax
assets. We continue to monitor the realizability of our deferred
tax assets and adjust the valuation allowance accordingly. For
fiscal 2011, we determined that a valuation allowance against
our net state deferred tax assets was necessary in the amount of
$378,000 due to our state apportioned income and the potential
expiration of state tax credits due to the carryforward periods.
In making
55
this determination, we considered all available positive and
negative evidence, including projected future taxable income,
tax planning strategies, recent financial performance and
ownership changes.
We believe that past issuances and transfers of our stock caused
an ownership change in fiscal 2007 that affected the timing of
the use of our net operating loss carryforwards, but we do not
believe the ownership change affects the use of the full amount
of the net operating loss carryforwards. As a result, our
ability to use our net operating loss carryforwards attributable
to the period prior to such ownership change to offset taxable
income will be subject to limitations in a particular year,
which could potentially result in increased future tax liability
for us.
As of March 31, 2011, we had net operating loss
carryforwards of approximately $8.1 million for federal tax
purposes and $4.8 million for state tax purposes. Included
in these loss carryforwards were $5.1 million for federal
and $2.6 million for state tax expenses that were
associated with the exercise of non-qualified stock options. The
benefit from our net operating losses created from these
compensation expenses has not yet been recognized in our
financial statements and will be accounted for in our
shareholders equity as a credit to additional
paid-in-capital
as the deduction reduces our income taxes payable. We first
recognize tax benefits from current period stock option expenses
against current period income. The remaining current period
income is offset by net operating losses under the tax law
ordering approach. Under this approach, we will utilize the net
operating losses from stock option expenses last.
We also had federal tax credit carryforwards of
$0.8 million and state tax credit carryforwards of
$195,000, which is net of a $378,000 valuation allowance. Both
the net operating losses and tax credit carryforwards will begin
to expire in varying amounts between 2014 and 2030. We recognize
penalties and interest related to uncertain tax liabilities in
income tax expense. Penalties and interest were immaterial as of
the date of adoption and are included in unrecognized tax
benefits. Due to the existence of net operating loss and credit
carryforwards, all years since 2002 are open to examination by
tax authorities.
By their nature, tax laws are often subject to interpretation.
Further complicating matters is that in those cases where a tax
position is open to interpretation, differences of opinion can
result in differing conclusions as to the amount of tax benefits
to be recognized under Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 740, Income
Taxes. ASC 740 utilizes a two-step approach for
evaluating tax positions. Recognition (Step 1) occurs when
an enterprise concludes that a tax position, based solely on its
technical merits, is more likely than not to be sustained upon
examination. Measurement (Step 2) is only addressed if Step
1 has been satisfied. Under Step 2, the tax benefit is measured
as the largest amount of benefit, determined on a cumulative
probability basis that is more likely than not to be realized
upon ultimate settlement. Consequently, the level of evidence
and documentation necessary to support a position prior to being
given recognition and measurement within the financial
statements is a matter of judgment that depends on all available
evidence. As of March 31, 2011, the balance of gross
unrecognized tax benefits was approximately $0.4 million,
all of which would reduce our effective tax rate if recognized.
We believe that our estimates and judgments discussed herein are
reasonable, however, actual results could differ, which could
result in gains or losses that could be material.
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
See Note C Summary of Significant Accounting
Policies to our accompanying audited consolidated financial
statements for a full description of recent accounting
pronouncements including the respective expected dates of
adoption and expected effects on results of operations and
financial condition.
|
|
Item 7A
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosure About Market Risk
|
Market risk is the risk of loss related to changes in market
prices, including interest rates, foreign exchange rates and
commodity pricing that may adversely impact our consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Inflation. Our results from operations have
not historically been, and we do not expect them to be,
materially affected by inflation.
Foreign Exchange Risk. We face minimal
exposure to adverse movements in foreign currency exchange
rates. Our foreign currency losses for all reporting periods
have been nominal.
56
Interest Rate Risk. Our investments consist
primarily of investments in money market funds and certificate
of deposits. While the instruments we hold are subject to
changes in the financial standing of the issuer of such
securities, we do not believe that we are subject to any
material risks arising from changes in interest rates, foreign
currency exchange rates, commodity prices, equity prices or
other market changes that affect market risk sensitive
instruments. It is our policy not to enter into interest rate
derivative financial instruments. As a result, we do not
currently have any significant interest rate exposure.
As of March 31, 2011, $0.9 million of our
$5.4 million of outstanding debt was at floating interest
rates. An increase of 1.0% in the prime rate would result in an
increase in our interest expense of approximately $8,500 per
year.
Commodity Price Risk. We are exposed to
certain commodity price risks associated with our purchases of
raw materials, most significantly our aluminum purchases. We
attempt to mitigate commodity price fluctuation for our aluminum
through 12- to
24-month
forward fixed-price purchase orders and minimum quantity
purchase commitments with suppliers. We have currently locked
pricing for our aluminum requirements through the first half of
fiscal 2012. Additionally, we recycle legacy HID fixtures and
recover the salvaged scrap value which we believe provides a raw
materials cost hedge as commodity prices change.
Credit Risk. Credit risk refers to the
potential for economic loss arising from the failure of our
customers to meet their contractual agreements. Our financing
program, the Orion Throughput Agreements, or OTA, is an
installment based payment plan for our customers. This financing
program subjects us to credit risk as poor credit decisions or
customer defaults could result in increases to our allowances
for doubtful accounts
and/or
write-offs of accounts receivable and could have material
adverse effects on our results of operations and financial
condition. These agreements and their increased use will require
us to make significant investments of capital, whether we
finance them internally or raise additional debt financing
and/or
equity capital to support the expansion. Our ability to
accurately measure and manage credit risk will be integral to
the profitability of our business and our capital adequacy.
57
|
|
ITEM 8.
|
INDEX
TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
|
|
59
|
|
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
|
|
64
|
|
|
|
|
65
|
|
58
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
Board of Directors and Shareholders
Orion Energy Systems, Inc.
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
Orion Energy Systems, Inc. (a Wisconsin Corporation) and
subsidiaries as of March 31, 2010 and 2011, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders equity
and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended
March 31, 2011. Our audits of the basic financial
statements included the financial statement schedule listed in
the index appearing under item 15(b). These consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule are the
responsibility of the Companys management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated
financial statements and financial statement schedule based on
our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred
to above present fairly, in all material respects, the
consolidated financial position of Orion Energy Systems, Inc and
subsidiaries as of March 31, 2010 and 2011, and the
consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows
for each of the three years in the period ended March 31,
2011, in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America. Also, in our opinion,
the related financial statement schedule, when considered in
relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set
forth therein.
As discussed in Note B, the 2010 financial statements have
been restated to correct misstatements related to certain lease
contracts.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
Companys internal control over financial reporting as of
March 31, 2011, based on criteria established in
Internal Control Integrated Framework issued
by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission (COSO) and our report dated July 22, 2011
expressed an unqualified opinion.
/S/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
July 22, 2011
59
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
Board of Directors and Shareholders
Orion Energy Systems, Inc.
We have audited Orion Energy Systems, Inc.s (a Wisconsin
Corporation) internal control over financial reporting as of
March 31, 2011, based on criteria established in
Internal Control Integrated Framework issued
by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission (COSO). Orion Energy Systems Inc.s management
is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over
financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting, included in the
accompanying Managements Report on Internal Control over
Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion
on Orion Energy Systems Inc.s internal control over
financial reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control
over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of
internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk
that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the
design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on
the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A companys
internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions
are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company
are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and directors of the company; and (3) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, Orion Energy Systems, Inc. maintained, in all
material respects, effective internal control over financial
reporting as of March 31, 2010, based on criteria
established in Internal Control Integrated
Framework issued by COSO.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of March 31,
2010 and 2011, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, temporary equity and shareholders equity, and
cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended
March 31, 2011 and our report dated July 22, 2011
expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial
statements.
/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
July 22, 2011
60
ORION
ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except share and per share amounts)
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
23,364
|
|
|
$
|
11,560
|
|
Short-term investments
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
1,011
|
|
Accounts receivable, net of allowances of $382 and $436
|
|
|
15,991
|
|
|
|
27,618
|
|
Inventories, net
|
|
|
25,991
|
|
|
|
29,507
|
|
Deferred tax assets
|
|
|
1,244
|
|
|
|
947
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
4,112
|
|
|
|
2,499
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
71,702
|
|
|
|
73,142
|
|
Property and equipment, net
|
|
|
28,193
|
|
|
|
30,017
|
|
Patents and licenses, net
|
|
|
1,590
|
|
|
|
1,620
|
|
Deferred tax assets
|
|
|
974
|
|
|
|
2,112
|
|
Long-term accounts receivable
|
|
|
2,092
|
|
|
|
6,030
|
|
Other long-term assets
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
2,069
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
104,578
|
|
|
$
|
114,990
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and Shareholders Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$
|
7,761
|
|
|
$
|
12,479
|
|
Accrued expenses
|
|
|
4,128
|
|
|
|
2,586
|
|
Current maturities of long-term debt
|
|
|
562
|
|
|
|
1,137
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
12,451
|
|
|
|
16,202
|
|
Long-term debt, less current maturities
|
|
|
3,156
|
|
|
|
4,225
|
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
186
|
|
|
|
1,777
|
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
398
|
|
|
|
399
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
16,191
|
|
|
|
22,603
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies (See Note G)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders equity:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock, $0.01 par value: Shares authorized:
30,000,000 shares at March 31, 2010 and 2011; no
shares issued and outstanding at March 31, 2010 and 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, no par value: Shares authorized: 200,000,000 at
March 31, 2010 and 2011; shares issued: 29,911,203 and
30,312,758 at March 31, 2010 and 2011; shares outstanding:
22,442,380 and 22,893,803 at March 31, 2010 and 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
122,515
|
|
|
|
124,805
|
|
Treasury stock: 7,468,823 common shares at March 31, 2010
and 7,431,897 at March 31, 2011
|
|
|
(32,011
|
)
|
|
|
(31,708
|
)
|
Shareholder notes receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(193
|
)
|
Retained deficit
|
|
|
(2,117
|
)
|
|
|
(517
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity
|
|
|
88,387
|
|
|
|
92,387
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and shareholders equity
|
|
$
|
104,578
|
|
|
$
|
114,990
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61
ORION
ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except share and per share amounts)
|
|
|
Product revenue
|
|
$
|
63,008
|
|
|
|
60,882
|
|
|
$
|
86,443
|
|
Service revenue
|
|
|
9,626
|
|
|
|
7,191
|
|
|
|
6,015
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total revenue
|
|
|
72,634
|
|
|
|
68,073
|
|
|
|
92,458
|
|
Cost of product revenue
|
|
|
42,235
|
|
|
|
40,063
|
|
|
|
58,251
|
|
Cost of service revenue
|
|
|
6,801
|
|
|
|
5,266
|
|
|
|
4,499
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cost of revenue
|
|
|
49,036
|
|
|
|
45,329
|
|
|
|
62,750
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
23,598
|
|
|
|
22,744
|
|
|
|
29,708
|
|
Operating expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
10,451
|
|
|
|
12,836
|
|
|
|
11,431
|
|
Sales and marketing
|
|
|
11,261
|
|
|
|
12,596
|
|
|
|
13,740
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
1,942
|
|
|
|
1,891
|
|
|
|
2,333
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
23,654
|
|
|
|
27,323
|
|
|
|
27,504
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from operations
|
|
|
(56
|
)
|
|
|
(4,579
|
)
|
|
|
2,204
|
|
Other income (expense):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(167
|
)
|
|
|
(256
|
)
|
|
|
(406
|
)
|
Loss on sale of OTA contract receivables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(561
|
)
|
|
|
(1,012
|
)
|
Extinguishment of debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
250
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividend and interest income
|
|
|
1,661
|
|
|
|
670
|
|
|
|
571
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense)
|
|
|
1,494
|
|
|
|
103
|
|
|
|
(847
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income tax
|
|
|
1,438
|
|
|
|
(4,476
|
)
|
|
|
1,357
|
|
Income tax expense (benefit)
|
|
|
927
|
|
|
|
(1,003
|
)
|
|
|
(243
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
511
|
|
|
$
|
(3,473
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,600
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic net income (loss) per share attributable to common
shareholders
|
|
$
|
0.02
|
|
|
$
|
(0.16
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.07
|
|
Weighted-average common shares outstanding
|
|
|
25,351,839
|
|
|
|
21,844,150
|
|
|
|
22,678,411
|
|
Diluted net income (loss) per share
|
|
$
|
0.02
|
|
|
$
|
(0.16
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.07
|
|
Weighted-average common shares and share equivalents outstanding
|
|
|
27,445,290
|
|
|
|
21,844,150
|
|
|
|
23,198,063
|
|
62
ORION
ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholder
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Retained
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paid-in
|
|
|
Treasury
|
|
|
Notes
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
Shareholders
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
Receivable
|
|
|
Loss
|
|
|
(Deficit)
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except share amounts)
|
|
|
Balance, March 31, 2008
|
|
|
26,963,408
|
|
|
$
|
114,090
|
|
|
$
|
(1,739
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(6
|
)
|
|
$
|
845
|
|
|
$
|
113,190
|
|
Issuance of stock and warrants for services
|
|
|
16,627
|
|
|
|
105
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
105
|
|
Exercise of stock options and warrants for cash
|
|
|
1,519,838
|
|
|
|
2,032
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,032
|
|
Tax benefit from exercise of stock options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,103
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,103
|
|
Stock-based compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,577
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,577
|
|
Treasury stock purchase
|
|
|
(6,971,090
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(29,797
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(29,797
|
)
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
511
|
|
|
|
511
|
|
Unrealized loss on short-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
485
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, March 31, 2009
|
|
|
21,528,783
|
|
|
$
|
118,907
|
|
|
$
|
(31,536
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(32
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,356
|
|
|
$
|
88,695
|
|
Issuance of stock and warrants for services
|
|
|
11,211
|
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48
|
|
Exercise of stock options and warrants for cash
|
|
|
1,024,113
|
|
|
|
1,989
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,989
|
|
Tax benefit from exercise of stock options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80
|
|
Stock-based compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,491
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,491
|
|
Treasury stock purchase
|
|
|
(121,727
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(475
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(475
|
)
|
Net loss (As Restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,473
|
)
|
|
|
(3,473
|
)
|
Unrealized gain on short-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32
|
|
Comprehensive Loss (As Restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,441
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, March 31, 2010 (As Restated)
|
|
|
22,442,380
|
|
|
$
|
122,515
|
|
|
$
|
(32,011
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(2,117
|
)
|
|
$
|
88,387
|
|
Issuance of stock and warrants for services
|
|
|
15,475
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
Exercise of stock options and warrants for cash
|
|
|
386,080
|
|
|
|
529
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
529
|
|
Shares issued under Employee Stock Purchase Plan
|
|
|
65,776
|
|
|
|
(132
|
)
|
|
|
353
|
|
|
|
(196
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
Tax benefit from exercise of stock options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
541
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
541
|
|
Collection of shareholder notes receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Stock-based compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,301
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,301
|
|
Treasury stock purchase
|
|
|
(15,908
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(50
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(50
|
)
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,600
|
|
|
|
1,600
|
|
Comprehensive income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,600
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, March 31, 2011
|
|
|
22,893,803
|
|
|
$
|
124,805
|
|
|
$
|
(31,708
|
)
|
|
$
|
(193
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(517
|
)
|
|
$
|
92,387
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63
ORION
ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
Operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
511
|
|
|
$
|
(3,473
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,600
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided
by (used in) operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
1,841
|
|
|
|
2,673
|
|
|
|
2,867
|
|
Stock-based compensation expense
|
|
|
1,577
|
|
|
|
1,491
|
|
|
|
1,301
|
|
Deferred income tax (benefit) provision
|
|
|
145
|
|
|
|
(1,112
|
)
|
|
|
(840
|
)
|
Loss (gain) on sale of assets
|
|
|
(31
|
)
|
|
|
546
|
|
|
|
999
|
|
Change in allowance for notes and accounts receivable
|
|
|
144
|
|
|
|
458
|
|
|
|
54
|
|
Extinguishment of debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(139
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
106
|
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
5,950
|
|
|
|
(4,579
|
)
|
|
|
(11,681
|
)
|
Inventories
|
|
|
(2,793
|
)
|
|
|
(6,409
|
)
|
|
|
(3,516
|
)
|
Prepaid expenses and other assets
|
|
|
(2,580
|
)
|
|
|
(1,979
|
)
|
|
|
(2,748
|
)
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
296
|
|
|
|
(56
|
)
|
|
|
4,718
|
|
Accrued expenses
|
|
|
(1,927
|
)
|
|
|
1,813
|
|
|
|
(1,542
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities
|
|
|
3,239
|
|
|
|
(10,718
|
)
|
|
|
(8,737
|
)
|
Investing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of property and equipment
|
|
|
(13,140
|
)
|
|
|
(5,649
|
)
|
|
|
(3,192
|
)
|
Purchase of property and equipment leased to customers under PPAs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,651
|
)
|
|
|
(2,343
|
)
|
Purchase of short-term investments
|
|
|
(4,113
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11
|
)
|
Sale of short-term investments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,522
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions to patents and licenses
|
|
|
(1,121
|
)
|
|
|
(299
|
)
|
|
|
(157
|
)
|
Proceeds from sales of long term assets
|
|
|
858
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on sale of long term investment
|
|
|
(361
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from disposal of equipment
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(17,873
|
)
|
|
|
(3,070
|
)
|
|
|
(5,702
|
)
|
Financing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
200
|
|
|
|
3,721
|
|
Proceeds from shareholder notes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
Deferred financing and offering costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(57
|
)
|
Repurchase of common stock into treasury
|
|
|
(29,340
|
)
|
|
|
(475
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Payment of long-term debt
|
|
|
(854
|
)
|
|
|
(805
|
)
|
|
|
(2,077
|
)
|
Excess benefit for deferred taxes on stock-based compensation
|
|
|
1,103
|
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
541
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of common stock
|
|
|
1,576
|
|
|
|
1,989
|
|
|
|
504
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
(27,515
|
)
|
|
|
989
|
|
|
|
2,635
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
(42,149
|
)
|
|
|
(12,799
|
)
|
|
|
(11,804
|
)
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period
|
|
|
78,312
|
|
|
|
36,163
|
|
|
|
23,364
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period
|
|
$
|
36,163
|
|
|
$
|
23,364
|
|
|
$
|
11,560
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental cash flow information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid for interest
|
|
$
|
350
|
|
|
$
|
277
|
|
|
$
|
368
|
|
Cash paid for income taxes
|
|
|
134
|
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
Supplemental disclosure of non-cash investing and financing
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares issued from treasury for stock note receivable
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
196
|
|
Shares surrendered into treasury for stock option exercise
|
|
$
|
457
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
50
|
|
Long-term note receivable received on sale of investment
|
|
|
297
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64
ORION
ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
|
|
NOTE A
|
DESCRIPTION
OF BUSINESS
|
Organization
The Company includes Orion Energy Systems, Inc., a Wisconsin
corporation, and all consolidated subsidiaries. The Company is a
developer, manufacturer and seller of lighting and energy
management systems and a seller and integrator of renewable
energy technologies to commercial and industrial businesses,
predominantly in North America.
In August 2009, the Company created Orion Engineered Systems, a
new operating division offering additional alternative renewable
energy systems. During the quarter ended December 31, 2010,
the new division exceeded the thresholds for segment reporting
and, accordingly, the Company has introduced the presentation of
operating segments in this quarter. See Note J
Segment Reporting of these financial statements for
further discussion of our reportable segments.
The corporate offices and manufacturing operations are located
in Manitowoc, Wisconsin and an operations facility occupied by
Orion Engineered Systems is located in Plymouth, Wisconsin.
|
|
NOTE B
|
RESTATEMENT
OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
|
The Company accounts for the correction of an error in
previously issued financial statements in accordance with the
provisions of Accounting Standards Codification, or ASC, Topic
250, Accounting Changes and Error Corrections. In accordance
with the disclosure provisions of ASC 250, when financial
statements are restated to correct an error, an entity is
required to disclose that its previously issued financial
statements have been restated along with a description of the
nature of the error, the effect of the correction on each
financial statement line item and any per share amount affected
for each prior period presented, and the cumulative effect on
retained earnings or other appropriate component of equity or
net assets in the statement of financial position, as of the
beginning of the earliest period presented.
As previously disclosed in a Current Report on
Form 8-K,
on June 14, 2011, the Audit Committee of the Board of
Directors of the Company concluded, following a preliminary
determination by the Companys management, that the
financial statements and related disclosures for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2010 and each of the quarterly unaudited
condensed consolidated financial statements for the periods
ended June 30, 2009 through December 31, 2010 should
no longer be relied upon and must be restated to properly record
revenue from its Orion Throughput Agreements, or OTAs, as
sales-type capital lease contracts.
In accordance with ASC Topic 840 Leases, the
Companys prior method of accounting for OTA transactions
as operating leases deferred revenue recognition over the full
term of the OTA contracts, only recognizing revenue on a monthly
basis as customer payments became due. In connection with the
audit for the fiscal year 2011, the Company concluded that
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP, required the
reclassification of transactions under the OTAs to sales-type
leases instead of as operating leases. Accounting for OTA
contracts as sales-type leases under GAAP requires the Company
to record revenue at the net present value of the future
payments at the time customer acceptance of the installed and
operating energy management system is complete, rather than
deferring revenue recognition over the full term of the OTA
contracts.
Throughout this Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
all amounts presented from prior periods and prior period
comparisons have been revised and labeled As
Restated and reflect the balances and amounts on a
restated basis.
65
The specific line-item effect of the restatement on the
Companys previously issued consolidated financial
statements for the year ended March 31, 2010 are as follows
(in thousands, except share and per share data):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2010
|
|
|
As Previously
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reported
|
|
Adjustments
|
|
As Restated
|
|
ASSETS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
$
|
14,617
|
|
|
$
|
1,374
|
|
|
$
|
15,991
|
|
Deferred tax assets, current
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,244
|
|
|
|
1,244
|
|
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
|
|
|
2,974
|
|
|
|
1,138
|
|
|
|
4,112
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
67,946
|
|
|
|
3,756
|
|
|
|
71,702
|
|
Property and equipment, net
|
|
|
30,500
|
|
|
|
(2,307
|
)
|
|
|
28,193
|
|
Deferred tax assets, long-term
|
|
|
2,610
|
|
|
|
(1,636
|
)
|
|
|
974
|
|
Accounts receivable, long-term
|
|
|
975
|
|
|
|
1,144
|
|
|
|
2,119
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
103,621
|
|
|
|
957
|
|
|
|
104,578
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued expenses
|
|
|
3,844
|
|
|
|
285
|
|
|
|
4,129
|
|
Deferred tax liabilities, current
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
|
(44
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
12,211
|
|
|
|
241
|
|
|
|
12,452
|
|
Retained deficit
|
|
|
(2,834
|
)
|
|
|
717
|
|
|
|
(2,117
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Statement of Operations
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
|
As Previously
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
Reported
|
|
Adjustments
|
|
As Restated
|
|
Total revenue
|
|
$
|
65,418
|
|
|
$
|
2,655
|
|
|
$
|
68,073
|
|
Total cost of sales
|
|
|
43,894
|
|
|
|
1,435
|
|
|
|
45,329
|
|
Gross Profit
|
|
|
21,524
|
|
|
|
1,220
|
|
|
|
22,744
|
|
Operating (loss) income
|
|
|
(5,799
|
)
|
|
|
1,220
|
|
|
|
(4,579
|
)
|
Loss on sale of receivables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(561
|
)
|
|
|
(561
|
)
|
Dividend and interest income
|
|
|
269
|
|
|
|
401
|
|
|
|
670
|
|
Income tax provision
|
|
|
(1,350
|
)
|
|
|
347
|
|
|
|
(1,003
|
)
|
Net (loss) income
|
|
|
(4,190
|
)
|
|
|
717
|
|
|
|
(3,473
|
)
|
Net loss per common share basic and diluted
|
|
$
|
(0.19
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.03
|
|
|
$
|
(0.16
|
)
|
Weighted average common shares outstanding basic and
diluted
|
|
|
21,844,150
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21,844,150
|
|
66
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
|
As Previously
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
|
Reported
|
|
Adjustments
|
|
As Restated
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
(4,190
|
)
|
|
$
|
717
|
|
|
$
|
(3,473
|
)
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
3,072
|
|
|
|
(399
|
)
|
|
|
2,673
|
|
Loss (gain) on sale of assets
|
|
|
(16
|
)
|
|
|
562
|
|
|
|
546
|
|
Deferred income tax (benefit) provision
|
|
|
(1,425
|
)
|
|
|
313
|
|
|
|
(1,112
|
)
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
(3,205
|
)
|
|
|
(1,374
|
)
|
|
|
(4,579
|
)
|
Prepaid expenses and other
|
|
|
268
|
|
|
|
(2,247
|
)
|
|
|
(1,979
|
)
|
Accrued expenses
|
|
|
1,529
|
|
|
|
284
|
|
|
|
1,813
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of property and equipment leased to customers under
operating leases
|
|
|
(4,795
|
)
|
|
|
2,144
|
|
|
|
(2,651
|
)
|
|
|
NOTE C
|
SUMMARY
OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
|
Principles
of Consolidation
The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of
Orion Energy Systems, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries.
All significant intercompany transactions and balances have been
eliminated in consolidation.
Reclassifications
Where appropriate, certain reclassifications have been made to
prior years financial statements to conform to the current
year presentation.
Use of
Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP
requires management to make estimates and assumptions that
affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and
disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of
the financial statements and reported amounts of revenues and
expenses during that reporting period. Areas that require the
use of significant management estimates include revenue
recognition, inventory obsolescence and bad debt reserves,
accruals for warranty expenses, income taxes and certain equity
transactions. Accordingly, actual results could differ from
those estimates.
Cash
and cash equivalents
The Company considers all highly liquid, short-term investments
with original maturities of three months or less to be cash
equivalents.
Short-term
investments available for sale
The amortized cost and fair value of short-term investments,
with gross unrealized gains and losses, as of March 31,
2010 and 2011 were as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
Amortized
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash
|
|
|
Short Term
|
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Gains
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Equivalents
|
|
|
Investments
|
|
|
Money market funds
|
|
$
|
22,297
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
22,297
|
|
|
$
|
22,297
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Bank certificates of deposit
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
23,297
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
23,297
|
|
|
$
|
22,297
|
|
|
$
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2011
|
|
|
|
Amortized
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash
|
|
|
Short Term
|
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Gains
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Equivalents
|
|
|
Investments
|
|
|
Money market funds
|
|
$
|
485
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
485
|
|
|
$
|
485
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Bank certificates of deposit
|
|
|
1,011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,496
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,496
|
|
|
$
|
485
|
|
|
$
|
1,011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of March 31, 2010 and 2011, the Companys financial
assets described in the table above were measured at fair value
on a recurring basis employing quoted prices in active markets
for identical assets (level 1 inputs).
The Companys certificate of deposit is pledged as security
for an equipment lease.
Fair
value of financial instruments
The carrying amounts of the Companys financial
instruments, which include cash and cash equivalents,
investments, accounts receivable, and accounts payable,
approximate their respective fair values due to the relatively
short-term nature of these instruments. Based upon interest
rates currently available to the Company for debt with similar
terms, the carrying value of the Companys long-term debt
is also approximately equal to its fair value. Valuation
techniques used to measure fair value must maximize the use of
observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs.
GAAP describes a fair value hierarchy based on the following
three levels of inputs, of which the first two are considered
observable and the last unobservable, that may be used to
measure fair value:
Level 1 Valuations are based on unadjusted
quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or
liabilities.
Level 2 Valuations are based on quoted prices
for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, or quoted
prices in markets that are not active for which significant
inputs are observable, either directly or indirectly.
Level 3 Valuations are based on prices or
valuation techniques that require inputs that are both
unobservable and significant to the overall fair value
measurement. Inputs reflect managements best estimate of
what market participants would use in valuing the asset or
liability at the measurement date.
Accounts
receivable
The majority of the Companys accounts receivable are due
from companies in the commercial, industrial and agricultural
industries, and wholesalers. Credit is extended based on an
evaluation of a customers financial condition. Generally,
collateral is not required for end users; however, the payment
of certain trade accounts receivable from wholesalers is secured
by irrevocable standby letters of credit. Accounts receivable
are generally due within
30-60 days.
Accounts receivable are stated at the amount the Company expects
to collect from outstanding balances. The Company provides for
probable uncollectible amounts through a charge to earnings and
a credit to an allowance for doubtful accounts based on its
assessment of the current status of individual accounts.
Balances that are still outstanding after the Company has used
reasonable collection efforts are written off through a charge
to the allowance for doubtful accounts and a credit to accounts
receivable.
68
Financing
receivables
The Company considers its lease balances included in
consolidated current and long-term accounts receivable from its
OTA sales-type leases to be financing receivables. Additional
disclosures on the credit quality of the Companys sold
sales-type leases and lease balances included in accounts
receivable are as follows:
Age Analysis
as of March 31, 2011(in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greater
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not Past
|
|
|
1-90 days
|
|
|
than 90 days
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total sales-type
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Due
|
|
|
past due
|
|
|
past due
|
|
|
Total past due
|
|
|
leases
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lease balances included in consolidated accounts
receivable current
|
|
$
|
1,190
|
|
|
$
|
17
|
|
|
$
|
5
|
|
|
$
|
22
|
|
|
$
|
1,212
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lease balances included in consolidated accounts
receivable long-term
|
|
|
3,696
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,696
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross sales-type leases
|
|
|
4,886
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
|
4,908
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net sales-type leases
|
|
$
|
4,886
|
|
|
$
|
17
|
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
|
$
|
20
|
|
|
$
|
4,906
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance
for credit losses
The Companys allowance for credit losses is based on
managements assessment of the collectability of customer
accounts. A considerable amount of judgment is required in order
to make this assessment including a detailed analysis of the
aging of the lease receivables and the current credit worthiness
of our customers and an analysis of historical bad debts and
other adjustments. If there is a deterioration of a major
customers credit worthiness or actual defaults are higher
than historical experience, the estimate of the recoverability
of amounts due could be adversely affected. The Company reviews
in detail the allowance for doubtful accounts on a quarterly
basis and adjusts the allowance estimate to reflect actual
portfolio performance and any changes in future portfolio
performance expectations. The Company has not incurred any
provision write-offs or credit losses against the OTA
sales-lease receivable balances in either fiscal 2010 or fiscal
2011.
Inventories
Inventories consist of raw materials and components, such as
ballasts, metal sheet and coil stock and molded parts; work in
process inventories, such as frames and reflectors; and finished
goods, including completed fixtures or systems, wireless energy
management systems and accessories, such as lamps, meters and
power supplies. All inventories are stated at the lower of cost
or market value with cost determined using the
first-in,
first-out (FIFO) method. The Company reduces the carrying value
of its inventories for differences between the cost and
estimated net realizable value, taking into consideration usage
in the preceding 12 months, expected demand, and other
information indicating obsolescence. The Company records as a
charge to cost of product revenue the amount required to reduce
the carrying value of inventory to net realizable value. As of
March 31, 2010 and 2011, the Company had inventory
obsolescence reserves of $756,000 and $811,000.
Costs associated with the procurement and warehousing of
inventories, such as inbound freight charges and purchasing and
receiving costs, are also included in cost of product revenue.
Inventories were comprised of the following (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
Raw materials and components
|
|
$
|
11,107
|
|
|
$
|
12,005
|
|
Work in process
|
|
|
669
|
|
|
|
459
|
|
Finished goods
|
|
|
14,215
|
|
|
|
17,043
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
25,991
|
|
|
$
|
29,507
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69
Prepaid
Expenses and Other Current Assets
Prepaid expenses and other current assets consist primarily of
deferred costs related to in-process OTA projects, prepaid
insurance premiums, prepaid license fees, purchase deposits,
advance payments to contractors, prepaid taxes and miscellaneous
receivables.
Property
and Equipment
Property and equipment are stated at cost. Expenditures for
additions and improvements are capitalized, while replacements,
maintenance and repairs which do not improve or extend the lives
of the respective assets are expensed as incurred. Properties
sold, or otherwise disposed of, are removed from the property
accounts, with gains or losses on disposal credited or charged
to income from operations.
The Company periodically reviews the carrying values of property
and equipment for impairment in accordance with ASC 360,
Property, Plant and Equipment, if events or changes in
circumstances indicate that the assets may be impaired. The
estimated future undiscounted cash flows expected to result from
the use of the assets and their eventual disposition are
compared to the assets carrying amount to determine if a
write down to market value is required. No write downs were
recorded in fiscal 2009, 2010 or 2011.
Property and equipment were comprised of the following (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Land and land improvements
|
|
$
|
1,436
|
|
|
$
|
1,474
|
|
Buildings
|
|
|
14,072
|
|
|
|
15,104
|
|
Furniture, fixtures and office equipment
|
|
|
6,615
|
|
|
|
8,323
|
|
Leasehold improvements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
Equipment leased to customers under Power Purchase Agreements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,994
|
|
Plant equipment
|
|
|
7,627
|
|
|
|
8,067
|
|
Construction in progress
|
|
|
5,774
|
|
|
|
2,272
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35,524
|
|
|
|
40,243
|
|
Less: accumulated depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
(7,331
|
)
|
|
|
(10,226
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net property and equipment
|
|
$
|
28,193
|
|
|
$
|
30,017
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equipment included above under capital leases were as follows
(in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
Equipment
|
|
$
|
25
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Less: accumulated amortization
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net equipment
|
|
$
|
5
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation is provided over the estimated useful lives of the
respective assets, using the straight-line method. The Company
recorded depreciation expense of $1.8 million, $2.6 million and
$2.7 million for the years ended March 31, 2009, 2010 and
2011, respectively. Depreciable lives by asset category are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Land improvements
|
|
|
10 15 years
|
|
Buildings
|
|
|
10 39 years
|
|
Leasehold improvements
|
|
|
Shorter of asset life or life of lease
|
|
Furniture, fixtures and office equipment
|
|
|
2 10 years
|
|
Plant equipment
|
|
|
3 10 years
|
|
70
The Company capitalized $21,000 and $0, respectively, of the
interest costs for construction in progress for the years ended
March 31, 2010 and 2011. Included in construction in
progress are costs related to Company-owned equipment leased to
customers under solar power purchase agreements, or PPAs, of
$2.7 million and none as of March 31, 2010 and 2011.
Patents
and Licenses
In April 2008, the Company entered into a new employment
agreement with the Companys CEO, Neal Verfuerth, which
superseded and terminated Mr. Verfuerths former
employment agreement with the Company. Under the former
agreement, Mr. Verfuerth was entitled to initial ownership
of any intellectual work product he made or developed, subject
to the Companys option to acquire, for a fee, any such
intellectual work product. The Company made payments to
Mr. Verfuerth totaling $144,000 per year in exchange for
the rights to eight issued and pending patents. Pursuant to the
new employment agreement, in exchange for a lump sum payment of
$950,000, Mr. Verfuerth terminated the former agreement and
irrevocably transferred ownership of his current and future
intellectual property rights to the Company as the
Companys exclusive property. This amount was capitalized
in fiscal 2009 and is being amortized over the estimated future
useful lives (ranging from 10 to 17 years) of the property
rights.
The Company capitalized $1,121,000, $299,000 and $157,000 of
costs associated with obtaining patents and licenses in fiscal
2009, 2010 and 2011. Amortization expense recorded to cost of
revenue for fiscal 2009, 2010 and 2011 was $105,000, $113,000
and $127,000. The costs and accumulated amortization for patents
and licenses were $1,905,000 and $315,000 as of March 31,
2010; and $2,062,000 and $442,000 as of March 31, 2011. The
average remaining useful life of the patents and licenses as of
March 31, 2011 was approximately 12.8 years.
As of March 31, 2011, future amortization expense of the
patents and licenses is estimated to be as follows (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2012
|
|
$
|
122
|
|
Fiscal 2013
|
|
|
119
|
|
Fiscal 2014
|
|
|
118
|
|
Fiscal 2015
|
|
|
118
|
|
Fiscal 2016
|
|
|
117
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
1,026
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,620
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Companys management periodically reviews the carrying
value of patents and licenses for impairment. No write-offs were
recorded in fiscal 2009, fiscal 2010 or fiscal 2011.
Long-Term
Receivables
The Company records a long-term receivable for the non-current
portion of its sales-type capital lease OTA contracts. The
receivable is recorded at the net present value of the future
cash flows from scheduled customer payments. The Company uses
the implied cost of capital from each individual contract as the
discount rate.
Also included in other long-term receivables are amounts due
from a third party finance company to which the Company has
sold, without recourse, the future cash flows from OTAs entered
into with customers. Such
71
receivables are recorded at the present value of the future cash
flows discounted at 11%. As of 2011, the following amounts were
due from the third party finance company in future periods (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2012
|
|
$
|
|
|
Fiscal 2013
|
|
|
955
|
|
Fiscal 2014
|
|
|
993
|
|
Fiscal 2015
|
|
|
936
|
|
Fiscal 2016
|
|
|
292
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross long-term receivable
|
|
|
3,176
|
|
Less: amount representing interest
|
|
|
(1,090
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net long-term receivable
|
|
$
|
2,086
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
Long-Term Assets
Other long-term assets include long-term security deposits,
prepaid licensing costs and deferred financing costs. Other
long-term assets include $27,000 and $55,000 of deferred
financing costs as of March 31, 2010 and March 31,
2011. Deferred financing costs related to debt issuances are
amortized to interest expense over the life of the related debt
issue (2 to 15 years). For the years ended March 31,
2009, 2010 and 2011, the amortization was $29,000, $6,000 and
$29,000.
In June 2008, the Company sold its long-term investment
consisting of 77,000 shares of preferred stock of a
manufacturer of specialty aluminum products. The investment was
originally acquired in July 2006 by exchanging products with a
fair value of $794,000. The Company received cash proceeds from
the sale in the amount of $986,000, which included accrued
dividends of $128,000, and also received a promissory note in
the amount of $298,000. During fiscal 2010, the specialty
aluminum products company was placed into receivership and the
assets of the Company sold. Proceeds from the sale were not
sufficient to cover any portion of the promissory note, and
therefore, the Company reserved for against the promissory note
in full.
Accrued
Expenses
Accrued expenses include warranty accruals, accrued wages,
accrued vacations, accrued insurance, accrued interest, sales
tax payable and other miscellaneous accruals. Accrued legal
costs amounted to $1,175,000 as of March 31, 2010. No
accrued expenses exceeded 5% of current liabilities as of
March 31, 2011.
The Company generally offers a limited warranty of one year on
its products in addition to those standard warranties offered by
major original equipment component manufacturers. The
manufacturers warranties cover lamps and ballasts, which
are significant components in the Companys products.
Changes in the Companys warranty accrual were as follows
(in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
Beginning of year
|
|
$
|
55
|
|
|
$
|
60
|
|
Provision to cost of revenue
|
|
|
80
|
|
|
|
114
|
|
Charges
|
|
|
(75
|
)
|
|
|
(115
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
End of year
|
|
$
|
60
|
|
|
$
|
59
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incentive
Compensation
The Companys compensation committee approved an Executive
Fiscal Year 2009 Annual Cash Incentive Program under its 2004
Stock and Incentive Awards Plan which became effective as of
July 30, 2008. The plan called for performance and
discretionary bonus payments ranging from
28-125% of
the fiscal 2009 base salaries of the Companys named
executive officers. The range of fiscal 2009 financial
performance-based bonus guidelines under the approved plan began
if the Company achieved a minimum of 1.125 times the fiscal 2008
revenue
and/or
72
up to 2.00 times the fiscal 2008 operating income, and
correspondingly increased on a pro rata basis up to a maximum of
1.67 times those initial measures. Based upon the results for
the year ended March 31, 2009, the Company did not accrue
any expense related to this plan.
The Companys compensation committee chose to freeze target
bonus programs for fiscal 2010 at their respective fiscal 2009
levels due to the economic environment the Company was operating
in. Based upon the results for the year ended March 31,
2010, the Company did not accrue any expense related to this
plan.
The Companys compensation committee approved an Executive
Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Cash Incentive Program under its 2004
Stock and Incentive Awards Plan which became effective as of
July 21, 2010. The plan called for performance and
discretionary bonus payments ranging from 7-19% of the fiscal
2011 base salaries of the Companys named executive
officers. The range of fiscal 2011 financial performance-based
bonus guidelines under the approved plan began if the Company
achieved a minimum of 1.2 times the fiscal 2010 revenue and a
minimum of $4.0 million operating income. Based upon the
results for the year ended March 31, 2011, the Company did
not accrue any expense related to this plan.
Revenue
Recognition
The Company offers a financing program, called an OTA, for a
customers lease of the Companys energy management
systems. The OTA is structured as a sales-type capital lease and
upon successful installation of the system and customer
acknowledgement that the system is operating as specified,
product revenue is recognized at the Companys net
investment in the lease which typically is the net present value
of the future cash flows.
The Company offers a separate program, called a PPA, for the
Companys renewable energy product offerings. A PPA is a
supply side agreement for the generation of electricity and
subsequent sale to the end user. Upon the customers
acknowledgement that the system is operating as specified,
product revenue is recognized on a monthly basis over the life
of the PPA contract, typically in excess of 10 years.
Other than for OTA and PPA sales, revenue is recognized when the
following four criteria are met:
|
|
|
|
|
persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists;
|
|
|
|
delivery has occurred and title has passed to the customer;
|
|
|
|
the sales price is fixed and determinable and no further
obligation exists; and
|
|
|
|
collectability is reasonably assured
|
These four criteria are met for the Companys product-only
revenue upon delivery of the product and title passing to the
customer. At that time, the Company provides for estimated costs
that may be incurred for product warranties and sales returns.
Revenues are presented net of sales tax and other sales related
taxes.
As discussed in Recent Accounting Pronouncements,
the Company elected to adopt the revised guidance of
ASC 605-25
related to multiple-element arrangements during the quarter
ended December 31, 2010. This guidance was retrospectively
applied to the beginning of the Companys fiscal year. The
adoption had no impact on revenue, income before taxes, net
income or earnings per share. The Company elected early adoption
due to the increasing volume of renewable energy projects sold
during fiscal 2011.
For sales contracts consisting of multiple elements of revenue,
such as a combination of product sales and services, the Company
determines revenue by allocating the total contract revenue to
each element based on their relative selling prices. In such
circumstances, the Company uses a hierarchy to determine the
selling price to be used for allocating revenue to deliverables:
(1) vendor-specific objective evidence (VSOE) of fair
value, if available, (2) third-party evidence (TPE) of
selling price if VSOE is not available, and (3) best
estimate of the selling price if neither VSOE nor TPE is
available (a description as to how the Company determined VSOE,
TPE and estimated selling price is provided below).
The nature of the Companys multiple element arrangements
are similar to a construction project with materials being
delivered and contracting and project management activities
occurring according to an installation
73
schedule. The significant deliverables include the shipment of
products and related transfer of title and the installation.
To determine the selling price in multiple-element arrangements,
the Company established VSOE of selling price for its HIF
lighting and energy management system products using the price
charged for a deliverable when sold separately. In addition, the
Company records in service revenue the selling price for its
installation and recycling services using managements best
estimate of selling price, as VSOE or TPE evidence does not
exist. Service revenue is recognized when services are complete
and customer acceptance has been received. Recycling services
provided in connection with installation entail the disposal of
the customers legacy lighting fixtures. The Companys
service revenues other than for installation and recycling that
are completed prior to delivery of the product are included in
product revenue using managements best estimate of selling
price, as VSOE or TPE evidence does not exist. These services
include comprehensive site assessment, site field verification,
utility incentive and government subsidy management, engineering
design, and project management. For these services and for
installation and recycling services, managements best
estimate of selling price is determined by considering several
external and internal factors including, but not limited to,
pricing practices, margin objectives, competition, geographies
in which the Company offers its products and services and
internal costs. The determination of estimated selling price is
made through consultation with and approval by management,
taking into account all of the preceding factors.
To determine the selling price for solar renewable product and
services sold through the Companys Engineered Systems
group, the Company uses managements best estimate of
selling price giving consideration to external and internal
factors including, but not limited to, pricing practices, margin
objectives, competition, scope and size of individual projects,
geographies in which the Company offers its products and
services and internal costs. The Company has completed a limited
number of renewable project sales and accordingly, does not have
sufficient VSOE or TPE evidence.
Costs of products delivered, and services performed, that are
subject to additional performance obligations or customer
acceptance are deferred and recorded in prepaid expenses and
other current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. These
deferred costs are expensed at the time the related revenue is
recognized. Deferred costs amounted to $1.6 million and
$773,000 as of March 31, 2010 and 2011.
Deferred revenue relates to advance customer billings,
investment tax grants received related to PPAs and a separate
obligation to provide maintenance on OTAs and is classified as a
liability on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. The fair value of
the maintenance is readily determinable based upon pricing from
third-party vendors. Deferred revenue related to maintenance
services is recognized when the services are delivered, which
occurs in excess of a year after the original OTA is executed.
Deferred revenue was comprised of the following (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
Deferred revenue current liability
|
|
$
|
338
|
|
|
$
|
262
|
|
Deferred revenue long term liability
|
|
|
186
|
|
|
|
1,777
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred revenue
|
|
$
|
524
|
|
|
$
|
2,039
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shipping
and Handling Costs
The Company records costs incurred in connection with shipping
and handling of products as cost of product revenue. Amounts
billed to customers in connection with these costs are included
in product revenue.
74
Advertising
Advertising costs of $608,000, $482,000 and $384,000 for fiscal
2009, 2010 and 2011 were charged to operations as incurred.
Research
and Development
The Company expenses research and development costs as incurred.
Income
Taxes
The Company recognizes deferred tax assets and liabilities for
the future tax consequences of temporary differences between
financial reporting and income tax basis of assets and
liabilities, measured using the enacted tax rates and laws
expected to be in effect when the temporary differences reverse.
Deferred income taxes also arise from the future tax benefits of
operating loss and tax credit carryforwards. A valuation
allowance is established when management determines that it is
more likely than not that all or a portion of a deferred tax
asset will not be realized.
ASC 740 also prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement
attribute for the financial statement recognition and
measurement of tax positions taken or expected to be taken in a
tax return. For those benefits to be recognized, a tax position
must be more-likely-than-not to be sustained upon examination.
The Company has classified the amounts recorded for uncertain
tax benefits in the balance sheet as other liabilities
(non-current) to the extent that payment is not anticipated
within one year. The Company recognizes penalties and interest
related to uncertain tax liabilities in income tax expense.
Penalties and interest were immaterial as of the date of
adoption and are included in the unrecognized tax benefits.
Deferred tax benefits have not been recognized for income tax
effects resulting from the exercise of non-qualified stock
options. These benefits will be recognized in the period in
which the benefits are realized as a reduction in taxes payable
and an increase in additional paid-in capital. Realized tax
benefits from the exercise of stock options were $1,103,000,
$80,000 and $541,000 for the fiscal years 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Stock
Option Plans
The Companys share-based payments to employees are
measured at fair value and are recognized in earnings, net of
estimated forfeitures, on a straight-line basis over the
requisite service period.
Cash flows from the exercise of stock options resulting from tax
benefits in excess of recognized cumulative compensation costs
(excess tax benefits) are classified as financing cash flows.
For the years ended March 31, 2009, 2010 and 2011,
$1,103,000, $80,000 and $541,000 of such excess tax benefits
were classified as financing cash flows.
The Company uses the Black-Scholes option-pricing model. Prior
to fiscal 2011, the Company had determined volatility based on
an analysis of a peer group of public companies due to a limited
share price history. In fiscal 2011, the Company calculated
volatility based upon the historical market price of its common
stock. The risk-free interest rate is the rate available as of
the option date on zero-coupon U.S. Government issues with
a remaining term equal to the expected term of the option. The
expected term is based upon the vesting term of the
Companys options and expected exercise behavior. The
Company has not paid dividends in the past and does not plan to
pay any dividends in the foreseeable future. The Company
estimates its forfeiture rate of unvested stock awards based on
historical experience.
75
The fair value of each option grant in fiscal 2009, 2010 and
2011 was determined using the assumptions in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended March 31,
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
Weighted average expected term
|
|
|
5.7 years
|
|
|
|
6.6 years
|
|
|
|
5.7 years
|
|
Risk-free interest rate
|
|
|
3.01
|
%
|
|
|
2.68
|
%
|
|
|
2.14
|
%
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
60
|
%
|
|
|
60
|
%
|
|
|
60.0 - 74.8
|
%
|
Expected forfeiture rate
|
|
|
2.0
|
%
|
|
|
3.0
|
%
|
|
|
11.4
|
%
|
Net
Income per Common Share
Basic net income per common share is computed by dividing net
income attributable to common shareholders by the
weighted-average number of common shares outstanding for the
period and does not consider common stock equivalents.
Diluted net income per common share reflects the dilution that
would occur if warrants and employee stock options were
exercised. In the computation of diluted net income per common
share, the Company uses the treasury stock method
for outstanding options and warrants. In addition, in computing
the dilutive effect of the convertible notes, the numerator is
adjusted to add back the after-tax amount of interest recognized
in the period. Diluted net loss per common share is the same as
basic net loss per common share for the year ended
March 31, 2010, because the effects of potentially dilutive
securities are anti-dilutive. The effect of net income per
common share is calculated based upon the following shares (in
thousands except share amounts):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Numerator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) (in thousands)
|
|
$
|
511
|
|
|
$
|
(3,473
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,600
|
|
Denominator:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average common shares outstanding
|
|
|
25,351,839
|
|
|
|
21,844,150
|
|
|
|
22,678,411
|
|
Weighted-average effect of assumed conversion of stock options
and warrants
|
|
|
2,093,451
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
519,652
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted-average common shares and common share equivalents
outstanding
|
|
|
27,445,290
|
|
|
|
21,844,150
|
|
|
|
23,198,063
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per common share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic
|
|
$
|
0.02
|
|
|
$
|
(0.16
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.07
|
|
Diluted
|
|
$
|
0.02
|
|
|
$
|
(0.16
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.07
|
|
The following table indicates the number of potentially dilutive
securities as of the end of each period:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
Common stock options
|
|
|
3,680,945
|
|
|
|
3,546,249
|
|
|
|
3,658,768
|
|
Common stock warrants
|
|
|
488,504
|
|
|
|
76,240
|
|
|
|
38,980
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
4,169,449
|
|
|
|
3,622,489
|
|
|
|
3,697,748
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Concentration
of Credit Risk and Other Risks and Uncertainties
The Companys cash is deposited with three financial
institutions. At times, deposits in these institutions exceed
the amount of insurance provided on such deposits. The Company
has not experienced any losses in such accounts and believes
that it is not exposed to any significant risk on these balances.
76
The Company currently depends on one supplier for a number of
components necessary for its products, including ballasts and
lamps. If the supply of these components were to be disrupted or
terminated, or if this supplier were unable to supply the
quantities of components required, the Company may have
short-term difficulty in locating alternative suppliers at
required volumes. Purchases from this supplier accounted for
19%, 26% and 34% of cost of revenue in fiscal 2009, 2010 and
2011.
In fiscal 2009, 2010 and 2011, there were no customers who
individually accounted for greater than 10% of revenue.
As of March 31, 2010 and 2011, one customer accounted for
16% of accounts receivable.
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
In July 2010, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update
2010-20,
Disclosures about the Credit Quality of Financing Receivables
and the Allowance for Credit Losses (ASU
2010-20).
ASU 2010-20
requires further disaggregated disclosures that improve
financial statement users understanding of (1) the
nature of an entitys credit risk associated with its
financing receivables and (2) the entitys assessment
of that risk in estimating its allowance for credit losses as
well as changes in the allowance and the reasons for those
changes. The new and amended disclosures as of the end of a
reporting period are effective for interim and annual reporting
periods ending on or after December 15, 2010. The adoption
of ASU
2010-20 did
not have a material impact on the Companys consolidated
results of operations and financial condition.
In April, 2011, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2011-03
Transfers and Servicing (Topic 860): Reconsideration of
Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements (ASU
2011-03).
ASU
No. 2011-03
affects all entities that enter into agreements to transfer
financial assets that both entitle and obligate the transferor
to repurchase or redeem the financial assets before their
maturity. The amendments in ASU
2011-03
remove from the assessment of effective control the criterion
relating to the transferors ability to repurchase or
redeem financial assets on substantially the agreed terms, even
in the event of default by the transferee. ASU
2011-03 also
eliminates the requirement to demonstrate that the transferor
possesses adequate collateral to fund substantially all the cost
of purchasing replacement financial assets. The guidance is
effective for the Companys reporting period ended
March 31, 2012. ASU
2011-03 is
required to be applied prospectively to transactions or
modifications of existing transaction that occur on or after
January 1, 2012. The Company does not expect that the
adoption of ASU
2011-03 will
have a significant impact on the Companys consolidated
financial statements.
In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2011-04
Fair Value Measurements (Topic 820): Amendments to Achieve
Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in US
GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards
(IFRS) (ASU
2011-04).
ASU 2011-04
represents the converged guidance of the FASB and the IASB (the
Boards) on fair value measurements. The collective
efforts of the Boards and their staffs, reflected in ASU
2011-04,
have resulted in common requirements for measuring fair value
and for disclosing information about fair value measurements,
including a consistent meaning of the term fair
value. The Boards have concluded the common requirements
will result in greater comparability of fair value measurements
presented and disclosed in financial statements prepared in
accordance with GAAP and IFRSs. The amendments in this ASU are
required to be applied prospectively, and are effective for
interim and annual periods beginning after December 15,
2011. The Company does not expect that the adoption of ASU
2011-04 will
have a significant impact on the Companys consolidated
financial statements.
In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU
No. 2011-05,
Comprehensive Income (ASC Topic 220): Presentation of
Comprehensive Income, (ASU
2011-05)
which amends current comprehensive income guidance. This
accounting update eliminates the option to present the
components of other comprehensive income as part of the
statement of shareholders equity. Instead, the Company
must report comprehensive income in either a single continuous
statement of comprehensive income which contains two sections,
net income and other comprehensive income, or in two separate
but consecutive statements. ASU
2011-05 will
be effective for public companies during the interim and annual
periods beginning after Dec. 15, 2011 with early adoption
permitted. The adoption of ASU
2011-05 will
not have an impact on the Companys consolidated financial
position, results of operations or cash flows as it only
requires a change in the format of the current presentation.
77
Effective April 1, 2010, the Company adopted ASU
2009-13,
Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements, which amends
ASC Subtopic
650-25
Revenue Recognition Multiple-Element Arrangements to
eliminate the requirement that all undelivered elements have
vendor-specific objective evidence (VSOE) or
third-party evidence (TPE) before an entity can
recognize the portion of an overall arrangement fee that is
attributable to items that already have been delivered. In the
absence of VSOE or TPE of the standalone selling price for one
or more delivered or undelivered elements in a multiple-element
arrangement, entities will be required to estimate the selling
prices of those elements. The overall arrangement fee will be
allocated to each element (both delivered and undelivered items)
based on their relative selling prices, regardless of whether
those selling prices are evidenced by VSOE or TPE or are based
on the entitys estimated selling price. Additionally, the
new guidance will require entities to disclose more information
about their multiple-element revenue arrangements. The adoption
of this ASU did not result in a material change in either the
units of accounting or a change in the pattern or timing of
revenue recognition. Additionally, the adoption of this ASU did
not have a material impact on the Companys consolidated
financial statements.
|
|
NOTE D
|
RELATED
PARTY TRANSACTIONS
|
During fiscal 2009, 2010 and 2011, the Company recorded revenue
of $49,000, $29,000 and $2,623,000 for products and services
sold to an entity for which a director of the Company was
formerly the executive chairman. Included in the fiscal 2011
revenue was $2,586,000 in revenue from OTA contracts completed
during the fiscal 2011 fourth quarter. As of March 31,
2011, current and long-term accounts receivable related to OTA
contracts were $0.2 million and $1.1 million,
respectively. There were no outstanding balances in accounts
receivable at March 31, 2010 or 2009. During fiscal 2009,
2010 and 2011, the Company purchased goods and services from the
same entity in the amounts of $180,000, $30,000 and $0. The
terms and conditions of such relationship are believed to be not
materially more favorable to the Company or the entity than
could be obtained from an independent third party.
During fiscal 2009, 2010 and 2011, the Company recorded revenue
of $521,000, $766,000 and $241,000 for products and services
sold to various entities affiliated or associated with an entity
for which a director of the Company previously served as a
member of the board of directors. The Company is not able to
identify the respective amount of revenues attributable to
specifically identifiable entities within such group of
affiliated or associated entities or the extent to which any
such individual entities are related to the entity on whose
board of directors the Companys director serves. The terms
and conditions of such relationship are believed to be not
materially more favorable to the Company or the entity than
could be obtained from an independent third party.
During fiscal 2010, the Company paid or accrued severance costs
of $139,000 to former members of management.
Long-term debt as of March 31, 2010 and 2011 consisted of
the following (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
Term note
|
|
$
|
1,017
|
|
|
$
|
782
|
|
Customer equipment finance notes payable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,793
|
|
First mortgage note payable
|
|
|
926
|
|
|
|
853
|
|
Debenture payable
|
|
|
847
|
|
|
|
807
|
|
Lease obligations
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other long-term debt
|
|
|
921
|
|
|
|
1,127
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term debt
|
|
|
3,718
|
|
|
|
5,362
|
|
Less current maturities
|
|
|
(562
|
)
|
|
|
(1,137
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt, less current maturities
|
|
$
|
3,156
|
|
|
$
|
4,225
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
78
Revolving
Credit Agreement
On June 30, 2010, the Company entered into a new credit
agreement (Credit Agreement) with JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JP
Morgan). The Credit Agreement replaced the Companys former
credit agreement with a different bank.
The Credit Agreement provides for a revolving credit facility
(Credit Facility) that matures on June 30, 2012. Borrowings
under the Credit Facility are limited to
(i) $15.0 million or (ii) during periods in which
the outstanding principal balance of outstanding loans under the
Credit Facility is greater than $5.0 million, the lesser of
(A) $15.0 million or (B) the sum of 75% of the
outstanding principal balance of certain accounts receivable of
the Company and 45% of certain inventory of the Company. The
Credit Agreement contains certain financial covenants, including
minimum unencumbered liquidity requirements and requirements
that the Company maintain a total liabilities to tangible net
worth ratio not to exceed 0.50 to 1.00 as of the last day of any
fiscal quarter. The Credit Agreement also contains certain
restrictions on the ability of the Company to make capital or
lease expenditures over prescribed limits, incur additional
indebtedness, consolidate or merge, guarantee obligations of
third parties, make loans or advances, declare or pay any
dividend or distribution on its stock, redeem or repurchase
shares of its stock or pledge assets. The Company also may cause
JP Morgan to issue letters of credit for the Companys
account in the aggregate principal amount of up to
$2.0 million, with the dollar amount of each issued letter
of credit counting against the overall limit on borrowings under
the Credit Facility. As of March 31, 2011, the Company had
outstanding letters of credit totaling $1.7 million,
primarily for securing collateral requirements under equipment
operating leases. The Company incurred $57,000 of deferred
financing costs related to the Credit Agreement which will be
amortized over the two-year term of the Credit Agreement. There
were no borrowings by the Company under the Credit Agreement as
of March 31, 2011. The Company was in compliance with all
of its covenants under the Credit Agreement as of March 31,
2011.
The Credit Agreement is secured by a first lien security
interest in the Companys accounts receivable, inventory
and general intangibles, and a second lien priority in the
Companys equipment and fixtures. All OTAs, PPAs, leases,
supply agreements
and/or
similar agreements relating to solar photovoltaic and wind
turbine systems or facilities, as well as all accounts
receivable and assets of the Company related to the foregoing,
are excluded from these liens.
The Company must pay a fee of 0.25% on the average daily unused
amount of the Credit Facility and a fee of 2.00% on the daily
average face amount of undrawn issued letters of credit. The fee
on unused amounts is waived if the Company or its affiliates
maintain funds on deposit with JP Morgan or its affiliates above
a specified amount. The deposit threshold requirement was not
met as of March 31, 2011.
Customer
Equipment Finance Notes Payable
In September 2010, the Company entered into a note agreement
with a financial institution that provided the Company with
$2.4 million to fund completed customer contracts under the
Companys OTA finance program. In February 2011, the
Company sold a portion of the OTA contracts collateralizing the
note to a third party equipment finance company. Accordingly,
the Company repaid $1.3 million of the outstanding note
balance and recorded a prepayment penalty of $33,000. This note
is included in the table above as customer equipment finance
note payable. The note is collateralized by the OTA-related
equipment and the expected future monthly payments under the
supporting 17 individual OTA customer contracts. The note bears
interest at 7% and matures in September 2015. The note agreement
includes certain prepayment penalties and a covenant that the
Company maintain at least $5 million in cash liquidity. The
Company was in compliance with all covenants in the note
agreement as of March 31, 2011.
In March 2011, the Company entered into a note agreement with a
financial institution that provided the Company with
$0.9 million to fund completed customer contracts under the
Companys OTA finance program. This note is included in the
table above as customer equipment finance note payable. The note
is collateralized by the OTA-related equipment and the expected
future monthly payments under the supporting three individual
OTA customer contracts. The note bears interest at 7% and
requires monthly payments of $20,900 through April 2015. The
note agreement includes certain prepayment penalties and a
covenant that the Company maintain at least
79
$5 million in cash liquidity. The Company was in compliance
with all covenants in the note agreement as of March 31,
2011.
Term
Note
The Companys term note requires principal and interest
payments of $25,000 per month payable through February 2014 at
an interest rate of 6.9%. Amounts outstanding under the note are
secured by a first security interest and first mortgage in
certain long-term assets and a secondary interest in inventory
and accounts receivable and a secondary general business
security agreement on all assets. In addition, the agreement
precludes the payment of dividends on our common stock. Amounts
outstanding under the note are 75% guaranteed by the United
States Department of Agriculture Rural Development Association.
First
Mortgage Note Payable
The Companys first mortgage note payable has an interest
rate of prime plus 2% (effective rate of 5.25% at March 31,
2011), and requires monthly payments of principal and interest
of $10,000 through September 2014. The mortgage is secured by a
first mortgage on the Companys manufacturing facility. The
mortgage includes certain prepayment penalties and various
restrictive covenants, with which the Company was in compliance
as of March 31, 2011.
Debenture
Payable
The Companys debenture payable was issued by Certified
Development Company at an effective interest rate of 6.18%. The
balance is payable in monthly principal and interest payments of
$8,000 through December 2024 and is guaranteed by United States
Small Business Administration 504 program. The amount due was
collateralized by a second mortgage on manufacturing facility.
Other
Long-Term Debt
In November 2007, the Company completed a Wisconsin Community
Development Block Grant with the local city government to
provide financing in the amount of $750,000 for the purpose of
acquiring additional production equipment. The loan has an
interest rate of 4.9% and is collateralized by the related
equipment. The loan requires monthly payments of $11,000 through
March 2015.
In September 2010, the Company entered into a note agreement
with the Wisconsin Department of Commerce that provided the
Company with $0.3 million to fund the Companys
rooftop solar project at its Manitowoc manufacturing facility.
This note is included in the table above as other long-term
debt. The note is collateralized by the related solar equipment.
The note allows for two years without interest accruing or
principal payments due. Beginning in July 2012, the note bears
interest at 2% and requires monthly payments of $4,600. The note
matures in June 2017. The note agreement requires the Company to
maintain a certain number of jobs at its Manitowoc facilities
during the notes duration. The Company was in compliance
with all covenants in the note agreement as of March 31,
2011.
In January 2011, the Company amended its November 2007 Wisconsin
Community Development Block Grant with the local city government
to provide the Company with $0.2 million to fund equipment
at its Manitowoc facility. The loan is included in the table
above as other long-term debt. The amendment to the loan
agreement is collateralized by the related equipment. The loan
bears interest at 2.1125% and requires monthly payment of $3,600
through December 2014. The amendment to the loan agreement
requires the Company to create and maintain a certain number of
jobs at its Manitowoc facilities during the notes
duration. The Company was in compliance with all covenants in
the loan agreement as of March 31, 2011.
Other long-term debt consists of block grants and equipment
loans from local governments. Interest rates range from 2.0% to
4.9%. The amounts due are collateralized by purchase money
security interests in plant equipment. In fiscal 2010, $250,000
of debt was forgiven related to the creation of certain types
and numbers of jobs within the lending locality.
80
Aggregate
Maturities
As of March 31, 2011, aggregate maturities of long-term
debt were as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2012
|
|
$
|
1,137
|
|
Fiscal 2013
|
|
|
1,089
|
|
Fiscal 2014
|
|
|
1,079
|
|
Fiscal 2015
|
|
|
759
|
|
Fiscal 2016
|
|
|
668
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
630
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
5,362
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The total provision (benefit) for income taxes consists of the
following for the fiscal years ending (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
Current
|
|
$
|
782
|
|
|
$
|
109
|
|
|
$
|
597
|
|
Deferred
|
|
|
145
|
|
|
|
(1,112
|
)
|
|
|
(840
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
927
|
|
|
$
|
(1,003
|
)
|
|
$
|
(243
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
$
|
824
|
|
|
$
|
(1,348
|
)
|
|
$
|
(366
|
)
|
State
|
|
|
103
|
|
|
|
345
|
|
|
|
123
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
927
|
|
|
$
|
(1,003
|
)
|
|
$
|
(243
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A reconciliation of the statutory federal income tax rate and
effective income tax rate is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
Statutory federal tax rate
|
|
|
34.0
|
%
|
|
|
(34.0
|
)%
|
|
|
34.0
|
%
|
State taxes, net
|
|
|
11.0
|
%
|
|
|
2.6
|
%
|
|
|
2.6
|
%
|
Stock-based compensation expense
|
|
|
21.2
|
%
|
|
|
5.0
|
%
|
|
|
(45.1
|
)%
|
Federal tax credit
|
|
|
(2.7
|
)%
|
|
|
(3.5
|
)%
|
|
|
(15.1
|
)%
|
State tax credit
|
|
|
(1.5
|
)%
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)%
|
|
|
(2.2
|
)%
|
Change in valuation reserve
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
|
|
5.1
|
%
|
|
|
8.3
|
%
|
Permanent items
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
5.7
|
%
|
Change in tax contingency reserve
|
|
|
0.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
Other, net
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
|
|
2.7
|
%
|
|
|
(6.1
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective income tax rate
|
|
|
64.5
|
%
|
|
|
(22.4
|
)%
|
|
|
(17.9
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
81
The net deferred tax assets and liabilities reported in the
accompanying consolidated financial statements include the
following components (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventory, accruals and reserves
|
|
$
|
607
|
|
|
$
|
705
|
|
Other
|
|
|
533
|
|
|
|
350
|
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
104
|
|
|
|
(108
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net current deferred tax assets and liabilities
|
|
|
1,244
|
|
|
|
947
|
|
Federal and state operating loss carryforwards
|
|
|
1,199
|
|
|
|
1,191
|
|
Tax credit carryforwards
|
|
|
848
|
|
|
|
1,201
|
|
Non qualified stock options
|
|
|
603
|
|
|
|
1,540
|
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
311
|
|
Fixed assets
|
|
|
(1,410
|
)
|
|
|
(1,753
|
)
|
Valuation allowance
|
|
|
(266
|
)
|
|
|
(378
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net long-term deferred tax assets and liabilities
|
|
$
|
974
|
|
|
$
|
2,112
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net deferred tax assets
|
|
$
|
2,218
|
|
|
$
|
3,059
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company is eligible for tax benefits associated with the
excess tax deduction available for exercises of non-qualified
stock options over the fair value determined at the grant date.
The amount of the benefit is based upon the ultimate deduction
reflected in the applicable income tax return. Benefits of
$1.1 million, $0.1 million and $0.5 million were
recorded in fiscal 2009, fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011 as a
reduction in taxes payable and a credit to additional paid in
capital based on the amount that was utilized in the current
year.
During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2011, the Company converted
almost all of its existing incentive stock options, or ISOs, to
non-qualified stock options, or NQSOs. This conversion was
applied retrospectively, allowing the Company to benefit
$0.6 million of income tax expense related to
non-deductible ISO stock compensation expense that was
previously deferred for income tax purposes. The conversion
reduced the effective tax rate for fiscal 2011 to a benefit rate
of 17.9% from a pre-conversion income tax expense rate of 27.2%.
As of March 31, 2011, the Company has federal net operating
loss carryforwards of approximately $8.1 million, of which
$5.1 million are associated with the exercise of
non-qualified stock options that have not yet been recognized by
the Company in its financial statements. The Company also has
state net operating loss carryforwards of approximately
$4.8 million, of which $2.6 million are associated
with the exercise of non-qualified stock options. The benefit
from the net operating losses created from these exercises will
be recorded as a reduction in taxes payable and a credit to
additional paid-in capital in the period in which the benefits
are realized.
As of March 31, 2011, The Company also has federal tax
credit carryforwards of approximately $0.8 million and
state tax credits of $0.6 million. A valuation allowance
has been set up for the state tax credits due to the state
apportioned income and the potential expiration of the state tax
credits due to the carry forward period. These federal and state
net operating losses and credit carryforwards are available,
subject to the discussion in the following paragraph, to offset
future taxable income and, if not utilized, will begin to expire
in varying amounts between 2014-2030.
In 2007, the Companys past issuances and transfers of
stock caused an ownership change. As a result, the
Companys ability to use its net operating loss
carryforwards, attributable to the period prior to such
ownership change, to offset taxable income will be subject to
limitations in a particular year, which could potentially result
in increased future tax liability for the Company. The Company
does not believe the ownership change affects the use of the
full amount of the net operating loss carryforwards.
The Company records its tax provision based on the respective
tax rules and regulations for the jurisdictions in which it
operates. Where the Company believes that a tax position is
supportable for income tax purposes, the item is included in
their income tax returns. Where treatment of a position is
uncertain, a liability is recorded based upon
82
the expected most likely outcome taking into consideration the
technical merits of the position based on specific tax
regulations and facts of each matter. These liabilities may be
affected by changing interpretations of laws, rulings by tax
authorities, or the expiration of the statute of limitations.
As of March 31, 2011, the Companys U.S. federal income
tax returns for tax years 2009 to 2011 remain subject to
examination. The Company has various federal income tax return
positions in the process of examination for 2009 to 2010. The
Company currently believes that the ultimate resolution of these
matters, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity.
State income tax returns are generally subject to examination
for a period of 3 to 5 years after filing of the respective
return. The state effect of any federal changes remains subject
to examination by various states for a period of up to two years
after formal notification to the states. The Company currently
has no state income tax return positions in the process of
examination, administrative appeals or litigation.
Uncertain
tax positions
As of March 31, 2011 the balance of gross unrecognized tax
benefits was approximately $0.4 million, all of which would
reduce the Companys effective tax rate if recognized. The
Company does not expect any of these amounts to change in the
next twelve months as none of the issues are currently under
examination, the statutes of limitations do not expire within
the period, and the Company is not aware of any pending
litigation. Due to the existence of net operating loss and
credit carryforwards, all years since 2002 are open to
examination by tax authorities.
The Company has classified the amounts recorded for uncertain
tax benefits in the balance sheet as other liabilities
(non-current) to the extent that payment is not anticipated
within one year. The Company recognizes penalties and interest
related to uncertain tax liabilities in income tax expense.
Penalties and interest are immaterial as of the date of adoption
and are included in the unrecognized tax benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended March 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
Unrecognized tax benefits as of beginning of fiscal year
|
|
$
|
392
|
|
|
$
|
397
|
|
|
$
|
398
|
|
Decreases relating to settlements with tax authorities
|
|
|
(5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions based on tax positions related to the current period
positions
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrecognized tax benefits as of end of fiscal year
|
|
$
|
397
|
|
|
$
|
398
|
|
|
$
|
399
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE G
|
COMMITMENTS
AND CONTINGENCIES
|
Operating
Leases
The Company leases vehicles and equipment under operating leases
expiring at various dates through 2021. Rent expense under
operating leases was $1,082,000, $1,385,000 and $1,810,000 for
fiscal 2009, 2010 and 2011. Total annual commitments under
non-cancelable operating leases with terms in excess of one year
at March 31, 2011 are as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2012
|
|
$
|
1,751
|
|
Fiscal 2013
|
|
|
1,368
|
|
Fiscal 2014
|
|
|
922
|
|
Fiscal 2015
|
|
|
911
|
|
Fiscal 2016
|
|
|
888
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
3,496
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
9,336
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase
Commitments
The Company enters into non-cancellable purchase commitments for
certain inventory items in order to secure better pricing and
ensure materials on hand and capital expenditures. As of
March 31, 2011, the Company had entered into
$11.6 million of purchase commitments related to fiscal
2012 for inventory purchases.
83
Retirement
Savings Plan
The Company sponsors a tax deferred retirement savings plan that
permits eligible employees to contribute varying percentages of
their compensation up to the limit allowed by the Internal
Revenue Service. This plan also provides for discretionary
Company contributions. In fiscal 2009, 2010 and 2011, the
Company made matching contributions of approximately $15,000,
$12,000 and $7,000.
Litigation
In February and March 2008, three class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, several of its
officers, all members of its then existing board of directors,
and certain underwriters relating to the Companys December
2007 initial public offering (IPO). The plaintiffs claimed to
represent those persons who purchased shares of the
Companys common stock from December 18, 2007 through
February 6, 2008. The plaintiffs alleged, among other
things, that the defendants made misstatements and failed to
disclose material information in the Companys IPO
registration statement and prospectus. The complaints alleged
various claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The
complaints sought, among other relief, class certification,
unspecified damages, fees, and such other relief as the court
may deem just and proper.
On August 1, 2008, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed
a consolidated amended complaint in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. On
September 15, 2008, the Company and the other director and
officer defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint, and the underwriters filed a separate motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint on January 16, 2009.
After oral argument on August 19, 2009, the court granted
in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss. The plaintiff
filed a second consolidated amended complaint on
September 4, 2009, and the defendants filed an answer to
the complaint on October 9, 2009.
In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010, the Company reached a
preliminary agreement to settle the class action lawsuits and on
January 3, 2011, the court issued an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement. After a fairness hearing
on April 14, 2011, the court approved the settlement in a
final judgment and order. No shareholder appeared at the hearing
to object. Accordingly, the case has concluded. Of the final
settlement amount of $3.25 million, the Company contributed
$0.49 million and the its insurer contributed
$2.76 million. The Company recorded the settlement charge
in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2010.
|
|
NOTE H
|
SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY
|
Conversion
of Preferred Stock Upon Completion of Initial Public
Offering
Upon completion of the Companys IPO, all preferred shares
were converted into common stock. Prior to the IPO, the Company
had issued various classes of preferred stock. Series B and
Series C preferred stock carried terms allowing for
liquidation preference, voting rights, and conversion into
common stock at a
one-to-one
ratio upon certain qualifying exit events.
Share
Repurchase Program and Treasury Stock
In July 2008, the Companys board of directors approved a
share repurchase program authorizing the Company to repurchase
in the aggregate up to a maximum of $20 million of the
Companys outstanding common stock. In December 2008, the
Companys board of directors supplemented the share
repurchase program authorizing the Company to repurchase up to
an additional $10 million of the Companys outstanding
common stock. As of March 31, 2011, the Company had
repurchased 7,092,817 shares of common stock at a cost of
$29.8 million under the program, which was effectively
terminated as of January 31, 2010.
In fiscal 2009, the Company affected a net stock option exercise
with an executive vice president. The executive surrendered
317,629 shares in lieu of a cash payment to cover the
exercise price and taxes related to the stock option exercise.
The shares surrendered were valued at $4.25, the closing market
price of the Companys stock on the date of exercise.
84
Shareholder
Rights Plan
On January 7, 2009, the Companys Board of Directors
adopted a shareholder rights plan and declared a dividend
distribution of one common share purchase right (a
Right) for each outstanding share of the
Companys common stock. The issuance date for the
distribution of the Rights was February 15, 2009 to
shareholders of record on February 1, 2009. Each Right
entitles the registered holder to purchase from the Company one
share of the Companys common stock at a price of $30.00
per share, subject to adjustment (the Purchase
Price).
The Rights will not be exercisable (and will be transferable
only with the Companys common stock) until a
Distribution Date occurs (or the Rights are earlier
redeemed or expire). A Distribution Date generally will occur on
the earlier of a public announcement that a person or group of
affiliated or associated persons (an Acquiring
Person) has acquired beneficial ownership of 20% or more
of the Companys outstanding common stock (a
Shares Acquisition Date) or 10 business days
after the commencement of, or the announcement of an intention
to make, a tender offer or exchange offer that would result in
any such person or group of persons acquiring such beneficial
ownership.
If a person becomes an Acquiring Person, holders of Rights
(except as otherwise provided in the shareholder rights plan)
will have the right to receive that number of shares of the
Companys common stock having a market value of two times
the then-current Purchase Price, and all Rights beneficially
owned by an Acquiring Person, or by certain related parties or
transferees, will be null and void. If, after a
Shares Acquisition Date, the Company is acquired in a
merger or other business combination transaction or 50% or more
of its consolidated assets or earning power are sold, proper
provision will be made so that each holder of a Right (except as
otherwise provided in the shareholder rights plan) will
thereafter have the right to receive that number of shares of
the acquiring companys common stock which at the time of
such transaction will have a market value of two times the
then-current Purchase Price.
Until a Right is exercised, the holder thereof, as such, will
have no rights as a shareholder of the Company. At any time
prior to a person becoming an Acquiring Person, the Board of
Directors of the Company may redeem the Rights in whole, but not
in part, at a price of $0.001 per Right. Unless they are
extended or earlier redeemed or exchanged, the Rights will
expire on January 7, 2019.
Employee
Stock Purchase Plan
In August 2010, the Companys board of directors approved a
non-compensatory employee stock purchase plan, or ESPP. The ESPP
authorizes 2,500,000 million shares to be issued from
treasury or authorized shares to satisfy employee share
purchases under the ESPP. All full-time employees of the Company
are eligible to be granted a non-transferable purchase right
each calendar quarter to purchase directly from the Company up
to $20,000 of the Companys common stock at a purchase
price equal to 100% of the closing sale price of the
Companys common stock on the NYSE Amex exchange on the
last trading day of each quarter. The ESPP allows for employee
loans from the Company, except for Section 16 officers,
limited to 20% of an individuals annual income and no more
than $250,000 outstanding at any one time. Interest on the loans
is charged at the
10-year loan
IRS rate and is payable at the end of each calendar year or upon
loan maturity. The loans are secured by a pledge of any and all
the Companys shares purchased by the participant under the
ESPP and the Company has full recourse against the employee,
including offset against compensation payable. The Company had
the following shares issued from treasury during fiscal 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of March 31, 2011
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Issued
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares Issued
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under ESPP
|
|
|
Closing Market
|
|
|
Under Loan
|
|
|
Dollar Value of
|
|
|
Repayment of
|
|
|
|
Plan
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Program
|
|
|
Loans Issued
|
|
|
Loans
|
|
|
Quarter Ended September 30, 2010
|
|
|
40,560
|
|
|
$
|
3.17
|
|
|
|
38,202
|
|
|
$
|
121,100
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Quarter Ended December 31, 2010
|
|
|
12,274
|
|
|
|
3.34
|
|
|
|
10,898
|
|
|
|
36,400
|
|
|
|
844
|
|
Quarter Ended March 31, 2011
|
|
|
12,942
|
|
|
|
4.04
|
|
|
|
9,555
|
|
|
|
38,600
|
|
|
|
1,841
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
65,776
|
|
|
$
|
3.37
|
|
|
|
58,655
|
|
|
$
|
196,100
|
|
|
$
|
2,685
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loans issued to employees are reflected on the Companys
balance sheet as a contra-equity account.
85
|
|
NOTE I
|
STOCK
OPTIONS AND WARRANTS
|
The Company grants stock options under its 2003 Stock Option and
2004 Stock and Incentive Awards Plans (the Plans). Under the
terms of the Plans, the Company has reserved
12,000,000 shares for issuance to key employees,
consultants and directors. The Companys board of directors
approved an increase to the number of shares available under the
2004 Stock and Incentive Awards Plan of 1,500,000 shares,
and such share increase was approved by the Companys
shareholders at the 2010 annual shareholders meeting and such
shares are included above. The options generally vest and become
exercisable ratably between one month and five years although
longer vesting periods have been used in certain circumstances.
Exercisability of the options granted to employees are
contingent on the employees continued employment and
non-vested options are subject to forfeiture if employment
terminates for any reason. Options under the Plans have a
maximum life of 10 years. In the past, the Company has
granted both incentive stock options and non-qualified stock
options, although in July 2008, the Company adopted a policy of
thereafter only granting non-qualified stock options. Restricted
stock awards have no vesting period and have been issued to
certain non-employee directors in lieu of cash compensation
pursuant to elections made under the Companys non-employee
director compensation program. The Plans also provide to certain
employees accelerated vesting in the event of certain changes of
control of the Company as well as under other special
circumstances.
In fiscal 2011, the Company converted all of its existing ISO
awards to NQSO awards. No consideration was given to the
employees for their voluntary conversion of ISO awards.
Prior to the Companys IPO, certain non-employee directors
elected to receive stock awards in lieu of cash compensation
under the non-employee director compensation plan which became
effective upon the closing of the Companys IPO. The
Company granted 2,210 shares from the 2004 Stock and
Incentive Awards Plan as pro-rata compensation for fiscal 2008.
The shares were issued in January 2008 and valued at the
Companys IPO price. In fiscal 2009, the Company granted
16,627 shares from the 2004 Stock and Incentive Awards Plan
to certain non-employee directors who elected to receive stock
awards in lieu of cash compensation. The shares were valued at
the market price as of the grant date, ranging from $3.00 to
$11.61 per share. In fiscal 2010, the Company granted
11,211 shares from the 2004 Stock and Incentive Awards Plan
to certain non-employee directors who elected to receive stock
awards in lieu of cash compensation. The shares were valued at
the market price as of the grant date, ranging from $3.29 to
$5.44 per share. In fiscal 2011, the Company granted
15,475 shares from the 2004 Stock and Incentive Awards Plan
to certain non-employee directors who elected to receive stock
awards in lieu of cash compensation. The shares were valued at
the market price as of the grant date, ranging from $2.86 to
$3.93 per share.
The following amounts of stock-based compensation were recorded
(in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal Year Ended
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
Cost of product revenue
|
|
$
|
269
|
|
|
$
|
222
|
|
|
$
|
187
|
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
676
|
|
|
|
539
|
|
|
|
560
|
|
Sales and marketing
|
|
|
587
|
|
|
|
691
|
|
|
|
523
|
|
Research and development
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,577
|
|
|
$
|
1,491
|
|
|
$
|
1,301
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
86
The number of shares available for grant under the plans were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Available at March 31, 2008
|
|
|
1,482,058
|
|
Granted stock options
|
|
|
(731,879
|
)
|
Granted shares
|
|
|
(16,627
|
)
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
337,402
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available at March 31, 2009
|
|
|
1,070,954
|
|
Granted stock options
|
|
|
(888,018
|
)
|
Granted shares
|
|
|
(11,211
|
)
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
397,965
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available at March 31, 2010
|
|
|
569,690
|
|
Amendment to Plan
|
|
|
1,500,000
|
|
Granted stock options
|
|
|
(744,077
|
)
|
Granted shares
|
|
|
(15,475
|
)
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
267,538
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available at March 31, 2011
|
|
|
1,577,676
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table summarizes information with respect to
outstanding stock options:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Fair
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
Value of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Average Exercise
|
|
|
Options
|
|
|
Aggregate Intrinsic
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Outstanding at March 31, 2008
|
|
|
4,716,022
|
|
|
|
2.30
|
|
|
$
|
3.03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
731,879
|
|
|
|
7.58
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(1,429,554
|
)
|
|
|
1.24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(337,402
|
)
|
|
|
6.26
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at March 31, 2009
|
|
|
3,680,945
|
|
|
|
3.40
|
|
|
$
|
4.25
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
888,018
|
|
|
|
3.92
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(624,749
|
)
|
|
|
1.71
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(397,965
|
)
|
|
|
4.89
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at March 31, 2010
|
|
|
3,546,249
|
|
|
|
3.66
|
|
|
$
|
2.23
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
744,077
|
|
|
|
3.57
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(364,020
|
)
|
|
|
1.30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(267,538
|
)
|
|
|
4.33
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at March 31, 2011
|
|
|
3,658,768
|
|
|
|
3.83
|
|
|
$
|
2.04
|
|
|
$
|
3,415,917
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercisable at March 31, 2011
|
|
|
1,826,601
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,284,748
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
87
The following table summarizes the range of exercise prices on
outstanding stock options at March 31, 2011:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contractual Life
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
|
(Years)
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
|
Vested
|
|
|
Price
|
|
|
$0.69
|
|
|
241,510
|
|
|
|
0.26
|
|
|
$
|
0.69
|
|
|
|
241,510
|
|
|
$
|
0.69
|
|
0.75 0.94
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
4.01
|
|
|
|
0.75
|
|
|
|
10,000
|
|
|
|
0.75
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
25,000
|
|
|
|
2.71
|
|
|
|
1.50
|
|
|
|
25,000
|
|
|
|
1.50
|
|
2.20 2.25
|
|
|
883,746
|
|
|
|
5.47
|
|
|
|
2.21
|
|
|
|
583,346
|
|
|
|
2.21
|
|
2.50 2.75
|
|
|
107,167
|
|
|
|
4.89
|
|
|
|
2.51
|
|
|
|
107,167
|
|
|
|
2.51
|
|
2.86 4.32
|
|
|
1,216,141
|
|
|
|
8.88
|
|
|
|
3.45
|
|
|
|
196,604
|
|
|
|
3.30
|
|
4.48 4.76
|
|
|
474,832
|
|
|
|
5.30
|
|
|
|
4.54
|
|
|
|
367,432
|
|
|
|
4.51
|
|
5.34 6.05
|
|
|
414,420
|
|
|
|
7.92
|
|
|
|
5.42
|
|
|
|
134,590
|
|
|
|
5.42
|
|
9.00 10.04
|
|
|
112,750
|
|
|
|
6.58
|
|
|
|
9.46
|
|
|
|
66,150
|
|
|
|
9.31
|
|
10.14 11.61
|
|
|
173,202
|
|
|
|
6.82
|
|
|
|
11.01
|
|
|
|
94,802
|
|
|
|
10.95
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,658,768
|
|
|
|
6.60
|
|
|
$
|
3.83
|
|
|
|
1,826,601
|
|
|
$
|
3.53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The aggregate intrinsic value represents the total pre-tax
intrinsic value, which is calculated as the difference between
the exercise price of the underlying stock options and the fair
value of the Companys closing common stock price of $4.04
as of March 31, 2011.
Unrecognized compensation cost related to non-vested common
stock-based compensation as of March 31, 2011 is as follows
(in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2012
|
|
$
|
1,269
|
|
Fiscal 2013
|
|
|
1,058
|
|
Fiscal 2014
|
|
|
750
|
|
Fiscal 2015
|
|
|
470
|
|
Fiscal 2016
|
|
|
270
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
172
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,989
|
|
Remaining weighted average expected term
|
|
|
6.6 years
|
|
The Company has issued warrants to placement agents in
connection with various stock offerings and services rendered.
The warrants grant the holder the option to purchase common
stock at specified prices for a specified period of time. There
were no warrants issued in fiscal 2009, 2010 or 2011.
88
Outstanding warrants are comprised of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
|
Outstanding at March 31, 2008
|
|
|
578,788
|
|
|
$
|
2.31
|
|
Issued
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(90,284
|
)
|
|
|
2.32
|
|
Cancelled
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at March 31, 2009
|
|
|
488,504
|
|
|
$
|
2.31
|
|
Issued
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(399,364
|
)
|
|
|
2.30
|
|
Cancelled
|
|
|
(12,900
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at March 31, 2010
|
|
|
76,240
|
|
|
$
|
2.37
|
|
Issued
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(22,060
|
)
|
|
|
2.50
|
|
Cancelled
|
|
|
(15,200
|
)
|
|
|
2.50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at March 31, 2011
|
|
|
38,980
|
|
|
$
|
2.25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A summary of outstanding warrants as of March 31, 2011
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise Price
|
|
Number of Warrants
|
|
Expiration
|
|
2.25
|
|
|
38,980
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2015
|
|
During the fiscal 2011 third quarter, certain activity of the
Companys Engineered Systems division exceeded the
quantitative thresholds required for segment reporting. As such,
descriptions of the Companys segments and their summary
financial information are summarized below.
Energy
Management
The Energy Management division develops, manufactures and sells
commercial high intensity fluorescent, or HIF, lighting systems
and energy management systems.
Engineered
Systems
The Engineered Systems division sells and integrates alternative
renewable energy systems, such as solar and wind, and provides
technical services for the Companys sale of HIF lighting
systems and energy management systems.
Corporate
and Other
Corporate and Other is comprised of selling, general and
administrative expenses not directly allocated to the
Companys segments and adjustments to reconcile to
consolidated results, which primarily include intercompany
eliminations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
Operating (Loss) Profit
|
|
|
For the Year Ended March 31,
|
|
For the Year Ended March 31,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
Segments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy Management
|
|
$
|
59,649
|
|
|
$
|
71,866
|
|
|
$
|
1,203
|
|
|
$
|
5,754
|
|
Engineered Systems
|
|
|
8,424
|
|
|
|
20,592
|
|
|
|
(471
|
)
|
|
|
1,371
|
|
Corporate and Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,311
|
)
|
|
|
(4,921
|
)
|
|
|
$
|
68,073
|
|
|
$
|
92,458
|
|
|
$
|
(4,579
|
)
|
|
$
|
2,204
|
|
89
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation
|
|
Capital Expenditures
|
|
|
For the Year Ended March 31,
|
|
For the Year Ended March 31,
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
Segments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy Management
|
|
$
|
1,929
|
|
|
$
|
1,454
|
|
|
$
|
1,325
|
|
|
$
|
1,696
|
|
Engineered Systems
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
207
|
|
|
|
2,682
|
|
|
|
2,374
|
|
Corporate and Other
|
|
|
568
|
|
|
|
1,050
|
|
|
|
4,293
|
|
|
|
1,465
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,553
|
|
|
$
|
2,711
|
|
|
$
|
8,300
|
|
|
$
|
5,535
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets
|
|
Deferred Revenue
|
|
|
31-Mar-10
|
|
31-Mar-11
|
|
31-Mar-10
|
|
31-Mar-11
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
Segments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy Management
|
|
$
|
58,332
|
|
|
$
|
67,449
|
|
|
$
|
390
|
|
|
$
|
533
|
|
Engineered Systems
|
|
|
3,976
|
|
|
|
14,405
|
|
|
|
134
|
|
|
|
1,506
|
|
Corporate and Other
|
|
|
42,270
|
|
|
|
33,136
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
104,578
|
|
|
$
|
114,990
|
|
|
$
|
524
|
|
|
$
|
2,039
|
|
The Companys revenue and long-lived assets outside the
United States are insignificant.
|
|
NOTE K
|
SUBSEQUENT
EVENTS
|
In June 2011, the Company entered into a note agreement with a
financial institution that provided the Company with
$2.8 million to fund completed customer contracts under the
Companys OTA finance program. The note is collateralized
by the OTA-related equipment and the expected future monthly
payments under the supporting 46 individual OTA customer
contracts. The note bears interest at 7.85% and matures in March
2016.
|
|
NOTE L
|
QUARTERLY
FINANCIAL DATA (UNAUDITED)
|
Summary quarterly results for the years ended March 31,
2010 and March 31, 2011 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
Sept. 30,
|
|
Dec. 31,
|
|
Mar. 31,
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2010
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
Total
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
|
|
Total revenue
|
|
$
|
16,977
|
|
|
$
|
15,853
|
|
|
$
|
30,056
|
|
|
$
|
29,572
|
|
|
$
|
92,458
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
5,753
|
|
|
|
5,610
|
|
|
|
9,154
|
|
|
|
9,191
|
|
|
|
29,708
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
(536
|
)
|
|
|
540
|
|
|
|
756
|
|
|
|
840
|
|
|
|
1,600
|
|
Basic net income per share
|
|
|
(0.02
|
)
|
|
|
0.02
|
|
|
|
0.03
|
|
|
|
0.04
|
|
|
|
0.07
|
|
Shares used in basic per share calculation
|
|
|
22,523
|
|
|
|
22,639
|
|
|
|
22,726
|
|
|
|
22,827
|
|
|
|
22,678
|
|
Diluted net income per share
|
|
|
(0.02
|
)
|
|
|
0.02
|
|
|
|
0.03
|
|
|
|
0.04
|
|
|
|
0.07
|
|
Shares used in diluted per share calculation
|
|
|
22,523
|
|
|
|
22,902
|
|
|
|
23,111
|
|
|
|
23,332
|
|
|
|
23,198
|
|
90
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
Sept. 30,
|
|
Dec. 31,
|
|
Mar. 31,
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2009
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
Total
|
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
(As Restated)
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
|
|
Total revenue
|
|
$
|
13,875
|
|
|
$
|
16,075
|
|
|
$
|
20,827
|
|
|
$
|
17,296
|
|
|
$
|
68,073
|
|
Gross profit
|
|
|
3,872
|
|
|
|
5,321
|
|
|
|
7,399
|
|
|
|
6,152
|
|
|
|
22,744
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
(2,080
|
)
|
|
|
(932
|
)
|
|
|
754
|
|
|
|
(1,215
|
)
|
|
|
(3,473
|
)
|
Basic net income per share
|
|
|
(0.10
|
)
|
|
|
(0.04
|
)
|
|
|
0.03
|
|
|
|
(0.05
|
)
|
|
|
(0.16
|
)
|
Shares used in basic per share calculation
|
|
|
21,588
|
|
|
|
21,707
|
|
|
|
21,792
|
|
|
|
22,255
|
|
|
|
21,844
|
|
Diluted net income per share
|
|
|
(0.10
|
)
|
|
|
(0.04
|
)
|
|
|
0.03
|
|
|
|
(0.05
|
)
|
|
|
(0.16
|
)
|
Shares used in diluted per share calculation
|
|
|
21,588
|
|
|
|
21,707
|
|
|
|
22,568
|
|
|
|
22,255
|
|
|
|
21,844
|
|
The four quarters for net earnings per share may not add to the
total year because of differences in the weighted average number
of shares outstanding during the quarters and the year.
91
|
|
ITEM 9.
|
CHANGES
IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
|
None.
|
|
ITEM 9A.
|
CONTROLS
AND PROCEDURES
|
Evaluation
of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
We maintain disclosure controls and procedures that are designed
to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the
reports that we file or submit under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within
the time periods specified in the SECs rules and forms,
and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our
management, including our principal executive and principal
financial officers, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions
regarding required disclosure.
Our management evaluated, with the participation of our Chief
Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer, the
effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures and our
internal control over financial reporting as of March 31,
2011, pursuant to Exchange Act
Rule 13a-15
and 15d-15.
In conducting such evaluation, management considered the
restatement of our financial statements related to the revenue
associated with our OTA contracts. Based upon such evaluation,
our Chief Executive Officer along with our Chief Financial
Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures
were effective as of March 31, 2011.
Managements
Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining
adequate internal control over financial reporting. Internal
control over financial reporting is defined in
Rule 13a-15(f)
and
15d-15(f)
under the Exchange Act as a process designed by, or under the
supervision of, our principal executive and principal financial
officers and effected by our board of directors, management and
other personnel, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles, and includes those
policies and procedures that:
|
|
|
|
|
pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail
accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions
of our assets;
|
|
|
|
provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as
necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and
that our receipts and expenditures are being made only in
accordance with authorization of our management and
directors: and
|
|
|
|
provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely
detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of our
assets that could have a material effect on the financial
statements.
|
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods
are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate
because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of
compliance with the policies and procedures may deteriorate.
Our management assessed the effectiveness of our internal
control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2011. In
making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth
by the Internal Control Integrated Framework issued
by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission (the COSO criteria).
Based on this assessment using the COSO criteria, management
believes that, as of March 31, 2011, our internal control
over financial reporting was effective.
Grant Thornton LLP, independent registered public accounting
firm has audited our consolidated financial statements for the
fiscal years ended March 31, 2009, 2010 and 2011 and our
internal control over financial reporting as of March 31,
2011. Their reports appear in Item 8 under the heading
Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
92
Changes
in Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting
There were no changes in our internal control over financial
reporting (as defined in
Rules 13a-15(f)
and
15d-15(f)
under the Exchange Act) that occurred during the quarter ended
March 31, 2011, that have materially affected or are
reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control
over financial reporting.
|
|
ITEM 9B.
|
OTHER
INFORMATION
|
None.
PART III
|
|
ITEM 10.
|
DIRECTORS,
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
|
Directors
Information with respect to our current directors is set forth
below.
Class I
Directors Terms Expiring 2011
Thomas A. Quadracci, 62, has served as a director since
2006, and was chairman of our board from 2006 until 2009.
Mr. Quadracci was executive chairman of Quad/Graphics,
Inc., one of the United States largest commercial printing
companies which he co-founded in 1971, until January 1,
2007, where he also served at various times as executive vice
president, president and chief executive officer, and chairman
and chief executive officer. Mr. Quadracci also founded and
served as President of Quad/Tech, Inc., a manufacturer and
marketer of industrial controls, until 2002. We believe that
Mr. Quadraccis experiences in co-founding, growing
and leading Quad/Graphics and Quad/Tech qualify him for service
as a director of our company.
Michael J. Potts, 47, became our president and chief
operating officer in July 2010. Prior to becoming our president
and chief operating officer, Mr. Potts served as our
executive vice president since 2003 and has served as a director
since 2001. Mr. Potts joined our company as our vice
president technical services in 2001. Prior to
joining our company, Mr. Potts founded Energy Executives
Inc., a consulting firm that assisted large energy-consuming
clients on energy issues. From 1988 through 2001, Mr. Potts
was employed by Kohler Co., one of the worlds largest
manufacturers of plumbing products. From 1990 through 1999 he
held the position of supervising engineer energy in
Kohlers energy and utilities department. In 2000,
Mr. Potts assumed the position of supervisor
energy management group of Kohlers entire corporate energy
portfolio, as well as the position of general manager of its
natural gas subsidiary. Mr. Potts is licensed as a
professional engineer in Wisconsin. We believe that
Mr. Potts experiences as our executive vice president
and in leadership roles in the energy industry and his public
affairs experience and engineering background qualify him for
service as a director of our company.
Elizabeth Gamsky Rich, 52, was appointed to our board of
directors in June 2010. Since January 2009 and from 2000 to
2007, Ms. Rich has been the owner of and an attorney with
Elizabeth Gamsky Rich & Associates S.C., a law firm
offering legal services in the areas of energy law,
environmental law, land use, real estate law and business law.
From September 2007 to January 2009, Ms. Rich was a
principal shareholder of Petrie & Stocking S.C.,
supervising a general legal practice and practicing in the areas
of energy, environmental and real estate law and related
litigation. Ms. Rich has served as a member of the board of
directors for Outpost Natural Foods, Gateway 2 Center Inc., the
Wisconsin State Bar Board of Governors and the Plymouth Arts
Foundation, and she currently serves on the board of directors
for the
Farm-to-Consumer
Legal Defense Foundation. We believe that Ms. Richs
background in advising companies in the energy and environmental
sectors and her experience as a director for various entities
qualify her for service as a director of our company.
Class II
Directors Terms Expiring 2012
Mark C. Williamson, 57, has served as a director since
April 2009 and has been our lead independent director since
October 2009. Mr. Williamson has been a partner of Putnam
Roby Williamson Communications of Madison, Wis., a strategic
communications firm specializing in energy utility matters,
since 2008. He has more than 20 years
93
of executive-level utility experience. Prior to joining Putnam
Roby Williamson Communications, Mr. Williamson was vice
president of major projects for American Transmission Company
from 2002 to 2008, served as executive vice president and chief
strategic officer with Madison Gas and Electric Company from
1986 to 2002 and, prior to 1986, was a trial attorney with the
Madison firm Geisler and Kay S.C. We believe that
Mr. Williamsons background in the energy utility
industry and in management positions qualify him for service as
a director of our company.
Michael W. Altschaefl, 52, has served as a director since
October 2009. Mr. Altschaefl is an owner and chief
executive officer of Albany-Chicago Company LLC, a custom die
cast and machined components company. Mr. Altschaefl is a
certified public accountant. Prior to joining Albany-Chicago
Company LLC in 2008, Mr. Altschaefl served as a partner
with Grant Thornton LLP, an independent registered public
accounting firm, for six years. We believe that
Mr. Altschaefls experience in leadership positions at
manufacturing companies and his background as an accountant
qualify him for service as a director of our company.
Tryg C. Jacobson, 55, was appointed to our board of
directors on May 31, 2011. Since 2010, Mr. Jacobson
has been the founder and president of Jakes Café LLC,
a collaborative community for creative professionals. Prior to
founding Jakes Café LLC, Mr. Jacobson was the
owner and chairman of Jacobson Rost, a Wisconsin-based marketing
communications firm specializing in corporate branding, from
1981 to 2010. Before joining Jacobson Rost, Mr. Jacobson
ran Ice Nine Corporation, a Minneapolis textile printing firm he
founded in 1978. In addition to his business responsibilities,
Mr. Jacobson served until 2010 on the Kohler
Foundations Board of Directors. He has also been a brand
specialist/speaker for The Executive Committee since 1995,
focusing on teaching his brand methodology to businesses in the
United States and Canada. Mr. Jacobson has also served as a
director of US Sailing Center Sheboygan since 2009. We believe
that Mr. Jacobsons experiences in leadership
positions at companies in the corporate communications and
branding industry qualify him for service as a director of our
company.
Class III
Directors Terms Expiring 2013
Neal R. Verfuerth, 52, has been a director since 1998 and
our chief executive officer since 2005. From 1998 until July
2009, Mr. Verfuerth also served as our president, and from
2009 until August 25, 2010, he served as chairman of our
board. He co-founded our company in 1996 and served until 1998
as our vice president. From 1993 to 1996, he was employed as
director of sales/marketing and product development of Lights of
America, Inc., a manufacturer and distributor of compact
fluorescent lighting technology. Prior to that time,
Mr. Verfuerth served as president of Energy 2000/Virtus
Corp., a solar heating and energy efficient lighting business.
Mr. Verfuerth has invented many of our products,
principally our Compact Modular energy efficient lighting
system, and other related energy control technologies used by
our company. We believe that Mr. Verfuerths role as
founder of our company and inventor of many of our products and
his experience in leadership positions in the energy management
industry qualify him for service as a director of our company.
James R. Kackley, 69, has been a director since 2005 and
the non-executive chairman of our board since August 25,
2010, and served as our president and chief operating officer
from July 2009 until May 2010. Mr. Kackley practiced as a
public accountant for Arthur Andersen, LLP from 1963 to 1999.
From 1974 to 1999, he was an audit partner for the firm. In
addition, in 1998 and 1999, he served as chief financial officer
for Andersen Worldwide. From June 1999 to May 2002,
Mr. Kackley served as an adjunct professor at the Kellstadt
School of Management at DePaul University. Mr. Kackley
serves as a director, a member of the executive committee and
the audit committee chairman of Herman Miller, Inc. From 2004
until 2010, Mr. Kackley served as a director and member of
the management resources and compensation committee and audit
committee of PepsiAmericas, Inc. prior to its sale, and from
February 2007 to October 2007 he also served as a director and a
member of the nominating and governance committee and the audit
committee of Ryerson, Inc. prior to its sale. In December 2010,
Mr. Kackley was elected to the board of directors of
Perficient, Inc., a publicly-traded information technology
consulting firm, where he serves as a member of the audit
committee and nominating and governance committee. We believe
that Mr. Kackleys background as an accountant and
chief financial officer, his public company audit committee
service, his role as our president and chief operating officer
and his experience in leadership positions in business qualify
him for service as a director of our company.
Thomas N. Schueller, 68, was appointed to our board of
directors in April 2010 and elected by shareholders at our 2010
annual meeting. From 2007 until his retirement in 2009,
Mr. Schueller was chief credit officer and
94
managing director of Lake Shore Wisconsin Corporation, a
commercial banking enterprise headquartered in Sheboygan,
Wisconsin. Prior to his position at Lake Shore Wisconsin
Corporation, Mr. Schueller served as president and senior
loan review officer of Community Bank and Trust of Sheboygan, a
commercial bank headquartered in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, from 1990
to 2007. From 1970 to 1989, Mr. Schueller served in a
variety of positions, including senior vice president and
regional senior lender, for Citizens Bank and Trust in
Sheboygan. We believe that Mr. Schuellers career in
the commercial finance industry and his experience in helping to
finance many growth companies qualify him for service as a
director of our company.
Executive
Officers
Information with respect to our current executive officers is
set forth below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Age
|
|
Position
|
|
Neal R. Verfuerth
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer
|
Scott R. Jensen
|
|
|
44
|
|
|
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|
Michael J. Potts
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
President and Chief Operating Officer
|
Richard Gaumer
|
|
|
58
|
|
|
Executive Vice President of Operations and Chief Accounting
Officer
|
Stuart L. Ralsky
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
Senior Vice President of Human Resources
|
John H. Scribante
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
President, Orion Engineered Systems
|
Daniel J. Waibel
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
President, Orion Asset Management Division
|
The following biographies describe the business experience of
our executive officers. (For biographies of
Messrs. Verfuerth and Potts, see Directors
above.)
Scott R. Jensen has been our Chief Financial Officer
since June 3, 2011 and our Treasurer since July 2008. He
also served as our Chief Accounting Officer from April 2011
until June 3, 2011, as our Chief Financial Officer from
July 2008 until April 2011, as our Controller and Vice President
of Corporate Finance from 2007 until 2008 and as our Director of
Finance from 2004 to 2007. From 2002 to 2004, Mr. Jensen
was the manager of financial planning and analysis at the Mirro
Co. (a division of Newell Rubbermaid). Mr. Jensen is a
certified public accountant.
Richard Gaumer became our Executive Vice President of
Operations in February 2011 and our Chief Accounting Officer on
June 3, 2011. Prior to joining Orion, Mr. Gaumer had
been an independent consultant to our company since June 2010
and had served as a tenured professor of accounting and
leadership at Lakeland College, a liberal arts college in
Sheboygan, Wisconsin, since 1999. At Lakeland College,
Mr. Gaumer oversaw technical research in the areas of
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 compliance and Lean Accounting best
practices. Mr. Gaumer also jointly served as an adjunct
professor for the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee
and University of Wisconsin Green Bay, teaching
graduate-level courses on financial decision making. Prior to
his positions in academia and as an independent consultant,
Mr. Gaumer held various financial executive positions
including Chief Financial Officer at Strategic Data Systems, a
provider of information technology services, and Divisional
Controller at Illinois Tool Works Inc., a multinational
manufacturer of a diversified range of industrial products and
equipment. He began his career at Kohler Co., a diversified
manufacturer of plumbing products, furniture, engines and
generators, with responsibilities in corporate taxation,
internal controls and divisional controller. Mr. Gaumer is
a licensed certified public accountant and certified fraud
examiner.
Stuart L. Ralsky became our Senior Vice President of
Human Resources in September 2009. Prior to joining our company,
Mr. Ralsky served as a principal of SLR Consulting, a
Chicago-based organization and human resource consulting firm
specializing in leadership and management assessment and
development, for more than 20 years. As a principal of SLR
Consulting, Mr. Ralsky completed a number of engagements
for clients with a primary focus on leadership and executive
assessment and development. He performed numerous executive
evaluations covering a wide range of positions and industries,
served as an executive coach for individuals from mid-level
managers to senior executives and designed and implemented
leadership development and behaviorally based interview training
programs for many clients. Mr. Ralsky has a Ph.D. in
industrial organizational psychology.
95
John H. Scribante became President of our newly-formed
Orion Engineered Systems Division in August 2009, after serving
as our Senior Vice President of Business Development since 2007.
Mr. Scribante served as our Vice President of Sales from
2004 until 2007. Prior to joining our company,
Mr. Scribante co-founded and served as chief executive
officer of Xe Energy, LLC, a distribution company that
specialized in marketing energy reduction technologies, from
2003 to 2004. From 1996 to 2003, he co-founded and served as
president of Innovize, LLC, a company that provided outsourcing
services to mid-market manufacturing companies.
Daniel J. Waibel has been President of our Orion Asset
Management Division since July 2008. Prior to being appointed
President of the Orion Asset Management Division,
Mr. Waibel had served as our Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer since 2001. Mr. Waibel has over 19 years of
financial management experience, and is a certified public
accountant and a certified management accountant. From 1998 to
2001, he was employed by Radius Capital Partners, LLC, a venture
capital and business formation firm, as a principal and chief
financial officer. From 1994 through 1998, Mr. Waibel was
chief financial officer of Ryko Corporation, an independent
recording music label. From 1992 to 1994, Mr. Waibel was
controller and general manager of Chippewa Springs, Ltd., a
premium beverage company. From 1990 to 1992, Mr. Waibel was
director of internal audit for Musicland Stores Corporation, a
music retailer. Mr. Waibel was employed by Arthur Andersen,
LLP from 1982 to 1990 as an audit manager.
Section 16(a)
Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance
Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, requires our executive officers, directors, and persons
who beneficially own more than ten percent of our common stock,
no par value per share (which we refer to as our Common
Stock), to file initial statements of beneficial ownership
(Form 3), and statements of changes in beneficial ownership
(Forms 4 or 5) of our Common Stock with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (which we refer to as the
SEC). The SEC requires executive officers, directors
and greater than ten percent shareholders to furnish us with
copies of all these forms filed with the SEC.
To our knowledge, based solely upon our review of the copies of
these forms received by us, or written representations from
certain reporting persons that no additional forms were required
for those persons, we believe that all of our executive officers
and directors complied with their reporting obligations during
fiscal 2011, except that a Form 4 reporting
Mr. Altschaefls receipt of Common Stock on
February 4, 2011 as part of his fiscal 2011 retainer was
not filed within two business days.
Code of
Conduct
We have adopted a Code of Conduct that applies to all of our
directors, employees and officers, including our principal
executive officer, our principal financial officer, our
controller and persons performing similar functions. Our Code of
Conduct is available on our web site at www.oesx.com. Future
material amendments or waivers relating to the Code of Conduct
will be disclosed on our web site referenced in this paragraph
within four business days following the date of such amendment
or waiver.
Shareholder
Nominations
No material changes have been made to the procedures by which
security holders may recommend nominees to our board of
directors.
Audit and
Finance Committee
Our board of directors has established an audit and finance
committee and has adopted a charter for the committee describing
its responsibilities. The charter is available on our website at
www.oesx.com.
Our audit and finance committee was established in accordance
with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Exchange Act and is
currently comprised of Messrs. Altschaefl, Quadracci,
Schueller and Williamson, with Mr. Altschaefl acting as the
chair. Each member of the audit and finance committee is an
audit committee financial expert, as defined under rules of the
Securities and Exchange Commission (which we refer to as the
SEC) implementing Section 407 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (which we refer to as the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act). The principal responsibilities
and functions of our audit and finance committee are to
(i) oversee the reliability of our financial reporting, the
96
effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting,
and the independence of our internal and external auditors and
audit functions and (ii) oversee the capital structure of
our company and assist our board of directors in assuring that
appropriate capital is available for operations and strategic
initiatives. In carrying out its accounting and financial
reporting oversight responsibilities and functions, our audit
and finance committee, among other things, oversees and
interacts with our independent auditors regarding the
auditors engagement
and/or
dismissal, duties, compensation, qualifications and performance;
reviews and discusses with our independent auditors the scope of
audits and our accounting principles, policies and practices;
reviews and discusses our audited annual financial statements
with our independent auditors and management; and reviews and
approves or ratifies (if appropriate) related party
transactions. Our audit and finance committee also is directly
responsible for the appointment, compensation, retention and
oversight of our independent auditors. Our audit and finance
committee met eight times in fiscal 2011. Our audit and finance
committee meets the requirements for independence under the
current rules of the NYSE Amex and the SEC, as
Messrs. Altschaefl, Quadracci, Schueller and Williamson are
all independent directors for such purposes.
|
|
ITEM 11.
|
EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION
|
Compensation
Discussion and Analysis
This compensation discussion and analysis describes the material
elements of compensation awarded to, earned by, or paid to each
of our named executive officers, whom we refer to as our
NEOs, during fiscal 2011 and describes our policies
and decisions made with respect to the information contained in
the following tables, related footnotes and narrative for fiscal
2011. The NEOs are identified below in the table titled
Summary Compensation Table for Fiscal 2011. In this
compensation discussion and analysis, we also describe various
actions regarding NEO compensation taken before or after fiscal
2011 when we believe it enhances the understanding of our
executive compensation program.
Overview
of Our Executive Compensation Philosophy and Design
We believe that a skilled, experienced and dedicated senior
management team is essential to the future performance of our
company and to building shareholder value. We have sought to
establish competitive compensation programs that enable us to
attract and retain executive officers with these qualities. The
other objectives of our compensation programs for our executive
officers are the following:
|
|
|
|
|
to motivate our executive officers to achieve strong financial
performance, particularly increased revenue, profitability, free
cash flow and shareholder value;
|
|
|
|
to attract and retain executive officers who we believe have the
experience, temperament, talents and convictions to contribute
significantly to our future success; and
|
|
|
|
to align the interests of our executive officers with the
interests of our shareholders.
|
In light of these objectives, we have sought to reward our NEOs
for achieving financial performance goals, creating value for
our shareholders, and for loyalty and dedication to our company.
We also seek to reward initiative, innovation and creation of
new products, technologies, business methods and applications,
since we believe our future success depends, in part, on our
ability to continue to expand our revenue, product and market
opportunities.
At the beginning of fiscal 2011, our compensation committee,
with the concurrence and support of our chief executive officer,
took the following actions with respect to the compensation of
our NEOs and other executive officers:
|
|
|
|
|
Pay no annual bonuses for fiscal 2010;
|
|
|
|
Continue to freeze base salaries for fiscal 2011 at their
respective fiscal 2010 levels (in most cases at fiscal 2009
levels), except for new hires and certain limited exceptions;
|
97
|
|
|
|
|
Implement a new annual cash bonus program with threshold
corporate financial performance criteria requiring at least a
20% year over year increase in our revenue and a minimum of a
$4 million operating profit; and
|
|
|
|
Grant long-term equity incentive awards to our NEOs at
substantially lower levels than past practice.
|
Our compensation committee also increased Mr. Potts
annual base salary in August 2010 to reflect his increased
duties and responsibilities as president and chief operating
officer as described below.
In early fiscal 2012, our management team recommended, and our
compensation committee approved, the following attributes for
our executive compensation program for fiscal 2012:
|
|
|
|
|
Continue to freeze base salaries for fiscal 2012 at their
respective fiscal 2011 levels (in most cases unchanged from
fiscal 2009 levels), except for new hires, promotions and
limited exceptions.
|
|
|
|
Pay no bonuses for fiscal 2011, despite increasing revenue by
over 35% from fiscal 2010.
|
|
|
|
Substitute, in lieu of our existing annual cash bonus program
and fiscal 2012 grants under our long-term equity incentive
program, a new, comprehensive equity- and performance-based
incentive compensation program, described below, which is
designed to focus our management team and key employees on
delivering substantial financial performance improvements in
fiscal 2012 over fiscal 2011.
|
These actions are analyzed further below. Our compensation
committee has reserved the right and discretion to make
exceptions to the foregoing actions, including as any such
exception may apply to the determination of any
and/or all
of the relative base salaries, annual cash bonuses, long-term
incentive compensation
and/or total
direct compensation of our executives, for outstanding
contributions to the overall success of our company and the
creation of shareholder value, as well as in cases where it may
be necessary or advisable to attract
and/or
retain executives who our compensation committee believes are or
will be key contributors to creating and sustaining shareholder
value, as determined by our compensation committee based on the
recommendations of our chief executive officer (in all cases
other than our chief executive officers own compensation).
Setting
Executive Compensation
Our board of directors, our compensation committee and our chief
executive officer each play a role in setting the compensation
of our NEOs. Our board of directors appoints the members of our
compensation committee and delegates to the compensation
committee the direct responsibility for overseeing the design
and administration of our executive compensation program. Our
compensation committee consists of Messrs. Williamson
(Chair) and Quadracci and Ms. Rich. Each member of our
compensation committee is an outside director for
purposes of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended, which we refer to as the Code, and
a non-employee director for purposes of
Rule 16b-3
under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, which we refer to
as the Exchange Act.
Our compensation committee has primary responsibility for, among
other things, determining our compensation philosophy,
evaluating the performance of our executive officers, setting
the compensation and other benefits of our executive officers,
overseeing the companys response to the outcome of the
advisory votes of shareholders on executive compensation and
administering our incentive compensation plans. Our chief
executive officer makes recommendations to our compensation
committee regarding the compensation of other executive officers
and attends meetings of our compensation committee at which our
compensation committee considers the compensation of other
executives. Our compensation committee considers these
recommendations, but has the final discretionary responsibility
for determining the compensation of all of our executive
officers.
In late fiscal 2010, our compensation committee engaged Towers
Watson to provide the committee with Towers Watsons market
assessment, based on its published survey sources, of the base
salary, total cash compensation and total direct compensation of
our executive officers to assist the committee in determining
fiscal 2011 compensation. Separately, our company engaged Towers
Watson to conduct a market assessment of 40 of our employment
positions (not including our NEOs) and provide our management
team with comparative benchmarking compensation data for such
positions based on its published survey sources with respect to
base salary and total cash compensation.
98
Because of the general recessionary economic and industry
conditions and their adverse impact on our fiscal 2010 financial
performance and fiscal 2011 prospects, the compensation
committee, with the concurrence and support of our chief
executive officer, determined in the beginning of fiscal 2011
that it would (i) pay no annual bonuses for fiscal 2010;
(ii) continue to freeze base salaries for fiscal 2011 at
their respective fiscal 2010 levels (in most cases at fiscal
2009 levels), except for new hires and certain limited
exceptions; (iii) implement a new fiscal 2011 annual cash
bonus program with threshold corporate financial performance
criteria requiring at least a 20% year over year increase in our
revenue and a minimum of a $4 million operating profit; and
(iv) grant long-term equity incentive awards to our NEOs at
substantially lower levels than past practice.
Pursuant to its engagement by our compensation committee in
determining fiscal 2011 compensation, Towers Watson provided the
committee with certain benchmarking data for salaries, annual
bonuses, long-term incentive compensation and total direct
compensation. In compiling the benchmarking data, Towers Watson
relied on the Towers Perrin 2009 Long-Term Incentive Survey, the
Watson Wyatt 2009/2010 Top Management Compensation Survey and
the Watson Wyatt 2009/2010 Middle Management Compensation
Survey. To approximate our labor market, Towers Watson used
market results corresponding to the participating companies in
the surveys who are in the electrical equipment and supplies
industry or, to the extent such results were not available for a
position, results corresponding to participating companies in
the durable goods manufacturing industry. Towers Watson used
regression analysis to adjust the survey data to compensate for
differences among the revenue sizes of the companies in the
survey and our revenue size. In making its fiscal 2011
compensation decisions, however, our compensation committee did
not receive or review, and was not aware of, the identities of
the individual participating companies in the surveys on which
Towers Watson relied, which information is proprietary and
confidential to Towers Watson. Accordingly, our compensation
committee did not have access to, or rely upon, the individual
companies comprising such confidential and proprietary general
market survey data in determining the compensation of our NEOs.
Our compensation committee did not engage Towers Watson or any
other compensation consultant in setting executive compensation
levels or making decisions regarding executive compensation
plans for fiscal 2012. The committee determined that it was not
necessary to incur the expense of obtaining additional advice
and guidance from an executive compensation consultant for
fiscal year 2012 for the following reasons:
|
|
|
|
|
Towers Watson had undertaken extensive work on behalf of the
committee in the preceding fiscal year relating to our executive
compensation levels relative to our peer group and market trends.
|
|
|
|
The compensation committee believed, based on informal
discussions with Towers Watson, that the relative market trends
for executive compensation for our peer group, and for the
market generally, had not significantly changed during fiscal
2011, and that our relative executive compensation levels remain
well within the median range of our peer group.
|
|
|
|
The committee did not expect to change significantly the total
base compensation levels for our executive officers for fiscal
2012. In particular, the committee expected to maintain
executive base salary levels flat with prior years for the third
year in a row and bonus opportunities were largely the same as
provided in fiscal 2012 (unless we achieve exceptional
performance).
|
The committee intends to revisit whether to engage a
compensation consultant for fiscal 2012 depending upon market
conditions and our companys performance.
Elements
of Executive Compensation
Our current executive compensation program for our NEOs consists
of the following elements:
|
|
|
|
|
Base salary;
|
|
|
|
Incentive compensation (both annual and long-term); and
|
|
|
|
Retirement and other benefits.
|
99
Base
Salary
We pay our NEOs a base salary to compensate them for services
rendered and to provide them with a steady source of income for
living expenses throughout the year. In fiscal 2011, as a result
of the challenging economic and industry market conditions and
their adverse impact on our fiscal 2010 financial results and
fiscal 2011 prospects, our compensation committee continued the
freeze on the base salaries of all of our NEOs (other than
Mr. Potts). To reflect Mr. Potts increased
duties and responsibilities as president and chief operating
officer, our compensation committee increased his annual base
salary from $225,000 to $275,000, which was consistent with the
median of market salaries paid to similarly situated executives
as determined by the committee as indicated in the benchmarking
data previously provided to the committee by Towers Watson.
Likewise, to reflect Mr. Scribantes increased duties
and responsibilities as a leader of an operating division of our
company, our compensation committee increased his annual base
salary from $225,000 to $275,000, which was consistent with the
median of market salaries paid to similarly situated executives
as determined by the committee as indicated in the benchmarking
data previously provided to the committee by Towers Watson.
The fiscal 2011 annual base salaries for our NEOs were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Name and Current Position
|
|
Base Salary ($)
|
|
Neal R. Verfuerth
|
|
$
|
460,000
|
|
Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
|
|
Michael J. Potts
|
|
|
275,000
|
|
President and Chief Operating Officer(1)
|
|
|
|
|
John H. Scribante
|
|
|
275,000
|
|
President of Orion Engineered Systems
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel J. Waibel
|
|
|
225,000
|
|
President of Orion Asset Management Division
|
|
|
|
|
Scott R. Jensen(2)
|
|
|
200,000
|
|
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Mr. Potts became our president and chief operating officer
effective as of July 21, 2010. |
|
(2) |
|
Mr. Jensens base salary was increased to $225,000 for
fiscal 2012 in connection with his resumption of the role of our
chief financial officer in June 2011. |
In early fiscal 2012, management recommended, and our
compensation committee approved, again freezing the base
salaries of our NEOs for fiscal 2012 at fiscal 2011 levels
(unchanged from fiscal 2009 levels, except for certain new
hires, promotions and other limited exceptions) due to our
desire to place greater emphasis on incentive and
pay-for-performance
compensation as described further below. Accordingly, the
salaries shown in the table above are our NEOs salaries
for fiscal 2012 as well, except that the fiscal 2012 base salary
of Mr. Jensen, who resumed the role of our chief financial
officer in June 2011, will be $225,000, which was consistent
with the median of market salaries paid to similarly situated
executives as determined by the committee as indicated in the
benchmarking data previously provided to the committee by Towers
Watson.
Incentive
Compensation
Incentive
Compensation for Fiscal 2011
Our incentive compensation programs for our NEOs for fiscal 2011
consisted of annual incentive cash bonus opportunities and
long-term incentive compensation opportunities in the form of a
time-vested non-qualified stock option grant.
Annual
Cash Incentive Opportunity for Fiscal 2011
In fiscal 2011, we structured our annual cash bonus program to
provide incentives to executives based on a broad combination of
factors, including our corporate financial performance and the
executives individual performance. Under the program, in
which all of our active, full-time employees (including our
NEOs) participated, bonuses were to be paid out of a bonus pool
established primarily on the basis of our achievement of
significantly
100
increased revenue from fiscal 2010, as well as achieving
significant operating income. Our management and compensation
committee selected increased revenue as the primary performance
measure for the bonus pool because they viewed revenue as the
most critical element to increasing the value of our Common
Stock and, therefore, to our companys enterprise value.
For the bonus pool to be established, two threshold requirements
were required to be met: our total revenues for fiscal 2011 must
have increased by at least 20% over our fiscal 2010 level (i.e.,
from $65.4 million in fiscal 2010 to at least
$78.5 million), and our operating income for fiscal 2011
must have exceeded $4 million. If we achieved both of these
threshold levels, a bonus pool would have been established in an
amount equal to 4% of the amount of our total revenue increase
in fiscal 2011 over 2010. The bonus pool would have been
adjusted by a percentage equal to the percentage improvement or
decline in our revenue per employee in fiscal 2011 compared to
fiscal 2010. Our management and compensation committee included
this element to emphasize the goal of improved efficiency of our
employee base. The fiscal 2011 pool would also have been reduced
by all significant quantifiable mistakes made by any employees
as tracked and reported by our management team and our chief
executive officer and as related to, and approved by, our
compensation committee.
Although we achieved our fiscal 2011 revenue target by reporting
fiscal 2011 revenue of $92.5 million (an increase of
approximately 37% over fiscal 2010 revenues), our fiscal 2011
operating income of almost $2.4 million was below the
$4 million operating income threshold target. As a result,
no bonuses were awarded for fiscal 2011.
The amount of individual bonus payouts under the fiscal 2011
bonus program, if the pool had been established, would have been
based 80% on company-wide performance and 20% on personal
performance for all employees except our two business unit
leaders, Mr. Scribante and Daniel J. Waibel. For
Messrs. Scribante and Waibel, the amount of their bonuses
would have been based 40% on company-wide performance, 40% on
their respective business unit performance and 20% on personal
performance. The amount of the portion of the business unit
performance for Messrs. Scribante and Waibel and the
individual bonus payouts based personal performance for all
participants was to be determined by our management with respect
to all employees other than our CEO and, for our CEO, by our
compensation committee, in their respective subjective judgment.
No performance objectives were pre-determined for purposes of
determining the amounts of the business unit performance for
Messrs. Scribante and Waibel or the individual bonuses.
Our management and our compensation committee allocated the
fiscal 2011 bonus program pool among our employees by employment
and/or
position category. Our NEOs targeted bonus payment
amounts, if we had achieved a total revenue target of
$78.5 million and operating income of at least
$4 million (and all business unit and individual
performance satisfy their targets), were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Target
|
|
|
Fiscal 2011 Bonus
|
Name and Current Position
|
|
Amount
|
|
Neal R. Verfuerth
|
|
$
|
88,627
|
|
Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
|
|
Michael J. Potts
|
|
|
18,916
|
|
President and Chief Operating Officer(1)
|
|
|
|
|
John H. Scribante
|
|
|
43,350
|
|
President of Orion Engineered Systems
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel J. Waibel
|
|
|
43,350
|
|
President of Orion Asset Management Division
|
|
|
|
|
Scott R. Jensen
|
|
|
16,814
|
|
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Mr. Potts became our president and chief operating officer
effective as of July 21, 2010. |
Long-Term
Equity Incentive Compensation in Fiscal 2011
We provide the opportunity for our NEOs to earn long-term equity
incentive awards under our 2004 Stock and Incentive Awards Plan.
Our employees, officers, directors and consultants are eligible
to participate in this plan. Our
101
compensation committee believes that long-term equity incentive
awards enhance the alignment of the interests of our NEOs and
the interests of our shareholders and provide our NEOs with
incentives to remain in our employment.
Our compensation committee generally awards long-term equity
incentives to our executives on an annual basis at the beginning
of each fiscal year. We also grant some stock options under our
informal program of providing small amounts of options to new
employees celebrating their first anniversary of employment and
some based on our chief executive officers discretion (for
new recruits, new job responsibilities, exceptional performance,
etc.). From time to time, our compensation committee also makes
special option grants. We have historically granted long-term
equity incentive awards solely in the form of options to
purchase shares of our Common Stock, which are initially subject
to forfeiture if the executives employment terminates for
any reason. The options generally vest and become exercisable
ratably over five years, contingent on the executives
continued employment. In the past, we granted both incentive
stock options and non-qualified stock options to our NEOs;
however, beginning in fiscal 2009, our compensation committee
decided to grant only non-qualified stock options to our NEOs
and all other employees because of the related tax benefits of
non-qualified stock options to our company. In fiscal 2011, we
converted almost all of our then-outstanding incentive stock
options to non-qualified stock options with the consent of the
affected option holders to reduce our effective tax rate and the
effective tax rate volatility we have historically experienced
at nominal pre-tax earnings levels. We historically have used
time-vesting stock options as our sole source of long-term
equity incentive compensation to our NEOs because we believed
that (i) stock options help to align the interests of our
NEOs with the interests of our shareholders by linking their
compensation with the increase in value of our Common Stock over
time; (ii) stock options conserve our cash resources for
use in our business; and (iii) vesting requirements on our
stock options provide our NEOs with incentive to continue their
employment with us which, in turn, provides us with retention
benefits and greater stability.
Our compensation committee has attempted to base a significant
portion of the total direct compensation payable to our
executives on the creation of shareholder value in order to link
executive pay to increased shareholder value, and also to reward
executives for increasing shareholder value. Our compensation
committee also believes that this emphasis on long-term
equity-based incentive compensation may help facilitate
executive retention and loyalty and motivate our executives to
achieve strong financial performance.
In May 2010, our management proposed, and our compensation
committee approved, a long-term incentive award program for
fiscal 2011. In order to promote key employee retention, give
executives skin in the game and reward continuous
strong corporate performance, our management recommended, and
our compensation committee approved, the establishment of a pool
of stock options covering 2% of our then outstanding shares, or
470,000 shares, for key employees. We allocated these
option grants by category of employee
and/or
position, with a total of 183,333 option shares granted to
so-called rainmakers, including, among the NEOs,
Messrs. Verfuerth and Scribante, and a total of 36,667
option shares granted to other executives, a group that included
Messrs. Potts and Jensen, and a total of 250,000 option
shares available for award to other key employees.
The individual awards within each category
and/or
position of employee were allocated proportionately according to
base salary within the applicable group. As a result of this
apportionment, the fiscal 2011 option awards to our NEOs in May
2010 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2011 Option Grant
|
Name and Current Position
|
|
Fair Value ($)/Shares (#)
|
|
Neal R. Verfuerth
|
|
$
|
77,307/34,207
|
|
Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
|
|
Michael J. Potts
|
|
$
|
26,261/11,620
|
|
President and Chief Operating Officer(1)
|
|
|
|
|
John H. Scribante
|
|
$
|
37,813/16,731
|
|
President of Orion Engineered Systems
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel J. Waibel
|
|
$
|
37,813/16,731
|
|
President of Orion Asset Management Division
|
|
|
|
|
Scott R. Jensen
|
|
$
|
23,343/10,329
|
|
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Mr. Potts became our president and chief operating officer
effective as of July 21, 2010. |
102
The number of shares resulting from the dollar amount of the
option grants set forth in the table above are based on a fiscal
2010 fair value of $2.26 per option share. The options were
granted with an effective date of the third business day after
our fiscal 2010 earnings release with an exercise price equal to
the closing price of a share of our Common Stock on such date.
Incentive
Compensation Opportunities for Fiscal 2012
Early in fiscal 2012, our management proposed, and our
compensation committee approved, a new, comprehensive incentive
and
pay-for-performance
compensation program with three basic elements:
|
|
|
|
|
A grant of stock options, which we refer to as accelerated
vesting stock options, the vesting of which is tied
directly to our achievement of significant improvements in three
financial metrics in fiscal 2012: total revenues, net income,
and free cash flow (calculated as described below).
|
|
|
|
An annual incentive award payable after the end of fiscal 2012
in a grant of stock options, which we refer to as
immediately vested stock options, the relative size
of which is also tied directly to our achievement of significant
improvements in total revenues, net income, and free cash flow
in fiscal 2012.
|
|
|
|
A potential cash incentive award for extraordinary performance
during fiscal 2012 (performance at a 120% or greater level as
measured by each of the three specified financial metric targets
in fiscal 2012).
|
Each of these elements is discussed and analyzed further below.
The target levels for the three financial metrics for fiscal
2012 were tied directly to our fiscal 2012 budget as approved by
our board of directors:
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2012 revenues of $115.0 million, determined pursuant
to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2012 net income of $4.9 million, determined
pursuant to GAAP, but excluding the impact of material gains or
losses that are non-cash in nature (as determined by our
compensation committee).
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2012 free cash flow of $4.9 million, calculated as
operating cash flow as determined pursuant to GAAP, less
traditional capital expenditures and OTA capital expenditures
(in each case, as determined by our compensation committee).
|
The financial targets described above are not a prediction of
how we will perform during fiscal year 2012. The purpose of the
targets is to provide appropriate financial metrics to determine
amounts of compensation under our incentive compensation
program. The targets are not intended to serve, and should not
be relied upon, as guidance or any other indication of our
expected future performance.
The new program will encompass all of our key employees,
including our NEOs, but the following discussion will focus on
our NEOs as required by the rules of the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Accelerated
Vesting Stock Options
We granted the accelerated vesting stock options in May 2011
under our 2004 Stock and Incentive Awards to provide an
opportunity for our NEOs to earn long-term equity incentive
awards based on our financial performance for fiscal 2012. The
stock options were granted on the third business day following
our public release of our fiscal 2011 results at an exercise
price per share of $4.19, which was the closing sale price of
our Common Stock on that date. The stock options will only vest,
however, if the optionee remains employed and we are successful
in achieving at least 100% of the target levels for each of our
three financial metric targets for fiscal 2012, and if our stock
price equals or exceeds $5.00 per share for at least 20 trading
days during any
90-day
period during the options ten-year term. Our compensation
committee believes that these awards serve to enhance the
alignment of the interests of our NEOs and the interests of our
shareholders and provide our NEOs with incentives to remain in
our employment.
The number of accelerated vesting option shares to be granted to
each of our NEOs was determined by dividing the expected grant
date fair value of the options by the product of the NEOs
target bonus under last fiscal years bonus program
(expressed as a percentage of base salary) and the NEOs
current base salary.
103
Our compensation committee determined to substitute the
accelerated stock option grants in fiscal 2012 for our normal
practice of granting cash bonus opportunities as a way to
minimize potential dilution to our earnings per share while
enhancing
pay-for-performance
by incentivizing management to deliver significant performance
in all three targeted financial metrics for fiscal 2012 and, as
a result, expected increased shareholder value.
The number of accelerated vesting stock options granted to our
NEOs was as follows:
Fiscal
2012 Accelerated Vesting Option Grants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Shares Subject to Option
|
|
Neal Verfuerth
|
|
|
36,166
|
|
Mike Potts
|
|
|
21,621
|
|
John Scribante
|
|
|
21,621
|
|
Dan Waibel
|
|
|
17,690
|
|
Scott Jensen
|
|
|
15,724
|
|
Immediately
Vested Stock Options and Extraordinary Performance Cash Bonus
Opportunities
Our compensation committee also determined to grant to
participants in our fiscal 2012 incentive program, including our
NEOs, an incentive award, the amount of which is contingent upon
our fiscal 2012 financial performance as measured against our
target fiscal 2012 GAAP revenue, target fiscal 2012 GAAP net
income and target fiscal 2012 free cash flows, and which is
payable in the form of stock options and, if we achieve
extraordinary performance, additional cash bonuses.
If our performance with respect to any of the three financial
metrics is under 100% of target, no immediately vested stock
options or cash bonuses will be granted to our NEOs in May 2012
under our fiscal 2012 incentive program. If our performance with
respect to all three of the financial metrics is 100% or
greater, then a pool of options to purchase 684,600 shares
of our Common Stock will be created. If our performance with
respect to all three of the financial metrics is 120% or
greater, then, in addition to the option pool, a cash bonus pool
of $806,667 will be created.
Our compensation committee determined that these pools will be
allocated according to the recommendations of our chief
executive officer with respect to all named executive officers
and other senior executives (other than our chief executive
officer), subject to review and concurrence by the compensation
committee. The committee will determine the allocation of a
portion of the option and cash bonus pools to our chief
executive officer. With respect to all other employees, our
chief executive officer will coordinate with the applicable
senior officers and other managers to determine an appropriate
allocation of options
and/or cash
bonuses to individual subordinate employees based on such
employees relative performance and contributions to the
relative success of our company. We intend to undertake a
training program to further educate the senior officers and
managers on the basis upon which to best assess their
subordinate employees to determine appropriate allocations of
the option and cash bonus pools.
Any options granted from the option pool will be immediately
fully vested, will be granted with an effective grant date on
the third business day following our release of our fiscal 2012
results and will have an exercise price equal to the closing
sale price of our Common Stock on the grant date. Our
compensation committee determined the size of the option and
bonus pools based on our managements and compensation
committees views, in their subjective judgment, of an
acceptable impact on our earnings per share if we achieved 100%
and 120%, respectively, or more of each of our three specified
financial metric targets in fiscal 2012.
Retirement
and Other Benefits
Welfare and Retirement Benefits. As part of a
competitive compensation package, we sponsor a welfare benefit
plan that offers health, life and disability insurance coverage
to participating employees. We also sponsor an employee stock
purchase plan under which our employees may purchase shares of
our Common Stock. In addition, to help our employees prepare for
retirement, we sponsor the Orion Energy Systems, Inc. 401(k)
Plan and match
104
employee contributions at a rate of 3% of the first $5,000 of an
employees contributions (i.e., capped at $150). Our
NEOs participate in the broad-based welfare plans, our employee
stock purchase plan and the 401(k) Plan on the same basis as our
other employees, except that they are not eligible for the loan
program under the employee stock purchase plan. We also provide
enhanced life and disability insurance benefits for our NEOs.
Under our enhanced life insurance benefit, we pay the full cost
of premiums for life insurance policies for our NEOs. The
amounts of the premiums are reflected in the Summary
Compensation Table below. Our enhanced disability insurance
benefit includes a higher maximum benefit level than under our
broad-based plan, cost of living adjustments and a portability
feature.
Perquisites and Other Personal Benefits. We
provide perquisites and other personal benefits that we believe
are reasonable and consistent with our overall compensation
program to better enable our executives to perform their duties
and to enable us to attract and retain employees for key
positions. We provide Messrs. Verfuerth, Potts and Waibel
with a car allowance of $1,000 per month. Mr. Scribante
participates in a program for our sales group under which we
provide mileage reimbursement for business travel. We lease a
corporate aircraft that we use primarily to transport customers
to and from our facilities in Manitowoc and for business travel
by our executive officers and certain other employees. Use of
the corporate aircraft avoids some of the time inefficiencies
associated with commercial travel, particularly given that our
headquarters is not located in proximity to any major airports,
and allows business to be conducted efficiently and securely
during flights. During fiscal 2011, on a limited basis, we also
permitted certain of our NEOs to use the aircraft for personal
travel. We provided this limited benefit to enhance their
ability to conduct business during personal travel, to increase
their safety and security and to lessen the amount of time they
must allocate to travel and away from company business.
Severance
and Change of Control Arrangements
We provide certain protections to our NEOs in the event of
certain terminations of their employment, including enhanced
protections for certain terminations that may occur after a
change of control of our company. However, our NEOs will only
receive the enhanced severance benefits following a change in
control if their employment terminates without cause or for good
reason. We describe this type of severance arrangement as being
subject to a double trigger. All payments, including
any double trigger severance payments, to be made to our NEOs in
connection with a change of control under their employment
agreements and any other of our agreements or plans will be
subject to a potential cut-back in the event any
such severance payments or other benefits become subject to
non-deductibility or excise taxes as excess parachute
payments under Code Section 280G or 4999. The
cut-back provisions have been structured such that all amounts
payable under their employment agreements and other of our
agreements or plans that constitute change of control payments
will be cut back to one dollar less than three times the
executives base amount, as defined by Code
Section 280G, unless the executive would retain a greater
amount by receiving the full amount of the payment and paying
the related excise taxes (a so-called valley
provision).
Our 2003 Stock Option Plan and our 2004 Stock and Incentive
Awards Plan also provide potential protections to our NEOs in
the event of certain changes of control. Under these plans, our
NEOs stock options that are unvested at the time of a
change of control may become vested on an accelerated basis in
the event of certain changes of control.
We selected these triggering events to afford our NEOs some
protection in the event of a termination of their employment,
particularly after a change of control of our company. We
believe these types of protections better enable our NEOs to
focus their efforts on behalf of our company without undue
concern over the impact on their employment or financial
security of a change of control of our company. We also provide
severance benefits in order to obtain from our NEOs certain
concessions that protect our interests, including their
agreement to confidentiality, intellectual property rights
waiver, non-solicitation and non-competition provisions. See
below under the heading Payments upon Termination or
Change of Control for a description of the specific
circumstances that would trigger payment or the provision of
other benefits under these arrangements, as well as a
description, explanation and quantification of the payments and
benefits under each circumstance.
105
Other
Policies
Policies On Timing of Option Grants. Our
compensation committee and board of directors have adopted a
policy on the timing of option grants, under which our
compensation committee generally will make annual option grants
beginning effective as of the date three business days after our
next quarterly (or year-end) earnings release following the
decision to make the grant, regardless of the timing of the
decision. Our compensation committee has elected to grant and
price option awards shortly following our earnings releases so
that options are priced at a point in time when the most
important information about our company then known to management
and our board is likely to have been disseminated in the market.
Our board of directors has also delegated limited authority to
our chief executive officer, acting as a subcommittee of our
compensation committee, to grant equity-based awards under our
2004 Stock and Incentive Awards Plan. Our chief executive
officer may grant awards covering up to 250,000 shares of
our Common Stock per fiscal year to certain non-executive
officers in connection with offers of employment, promotions and
certain other circumstances. Under this delegation of authority,
any options or stock appreciation rights granted by our chief
executive officer must have an effective grant date on the first
business day of the month following the event giving rise to the
award.
Our 2004 Stock and Incentive Awards Plan does not permit awards
of stock options or stock appreciation rights with an effective
grant date prior to the date our compensation committee or our
chief executive officer takes action to approve the award.
Executive Officer Stock Ownership
Guidelines. One of the key objectives of our
executive compensation program is alignment of the interests of
our executive officers with the interests of our shareholders.
We believe that ensuring that executive officers are
shareholders and have a significant financial interest in our
company is an effective means to accomplish this objective. In
early fiscal 2011, our compensation committee recommended and
our board of directors approved amended guidelines that fixed
the number of shares required to be held.
The number of shares now required to be held by our executive
officers is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
Position
|
|
of Shares
|
|
Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
112,154
|
|
Chief Operating Officer
|
|
|
38,077
|
|
Executive Vice President
|
|
|
38,077
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
|
|
38,077
|
|
Senior Vice President
|
|
|
11,539
|
|
Vice President
|
|
|
11,539
|
|
Executive officers are permitted to satisfy these ownership
guidelines with shares of our Common Stock that they acquire
through the exercise of stock options or other similar
equity-based awards, through retention upon vesting of
restricted shares or other similar equity-based awards and
through direct share purchases. Our executive officers who were
executive officers at the time of the adoption of the amended
guidelines have until the fifth anniversary of the adoption to
satisfy the ownership requirement. Newly appointed executive
officers will have until the fifth anniversary of their
appointment as executive officers to satisfy the ownership
requirement. All of our executive officers have either satisfied
the ownership requirement or have additional time to do so.
Tax Considerations. In setting compensation
for our NEOs, our compensation committee considers the
deductibility of compensation under the Code.
Section 162(m) of the Code prohibits us from taking a tax
deduction for compensation in excess of $1.0 million that
is paid to our chief executive officer and our NEOs, excluding
our chief financial officer, and that is not considered
performance-based compensation under
Section 162(m). However, certain transition rules of
Section 162(m) have permitted us to treat as
performance-based compensation that is not subject to the
$1.0 million cap on the following: (i) the
compensation resulting from the exercise of stock options that
we granted prior to our initial public offering; (ii) the
compensation payable under bonus arrangements that were in place
prior to our initial public offering; and
(iii) compensation resulting from the exercise of stock
options, or the vesting of restricted stock, that we may grant
during the period that began after the closing of our
106
initial public offering and generally ends on the date of this
years annual shareholders meeting. Our 2004 Stock and
Incentive Awards Plan provides for the grant of
performance-based compensation under Section 162(m), and we
are seeking shareholder approval of the Plan at this years
annual meeting to enable us to qualify awards granted under the
Plan to be considered performance-based compensation for
purposes of Section 162(m). Our compensation committee may,
however, approve compensation that will not meet the
requirements of Section 162(m) in order to ensure
competitive levels of total compensation for our executive
officers.
In past years, we granted incentive stock options to our NEOs
under our equity-based plans. We have also granted non-qualified
stock options under our equity-based plans. Because our company
does not receive an income tax deduction with respect to
incentive stock options unless there is a disqualifying
disposition of the stock acquired under the option, our
compensation committee decided in fiscal 2009 to discontinue the
grant of incentive stock options to our NEOs and other
employees. We also converted almost all of our outstanding
incentive stock options to nonqualified stock options in fiscal
2011.
We maintain certain deferred compensation arrangements for our
employees and non-employee directors that are potentially
subject to Code Section 409A. If such an arrangement is
neither exempt from the application of Code Section 409A
nor complies with the provisions of Code Section 409A, then
the employee or non-employee director participant in such
arrangement is considered to have taxable income when the
deferred compensation vests, even if not paid at such time, and
such income is subject to an additional 20% income tax. In such
event, we are obligated to report such taxable income to the IRS
and, for employees, withhold both regular income taxes and the
20% additional income tax. If we fail to do so, we could be
liable for the withholding taxes and interest and penalties
thereon. Stock options with an exercise price lower than the
fair market value of our Common Stock on the date of grant are
not exempt from coverage under Code Section 409A. We
believe that all of our stock option grants are exempt from
coverage under Code Section 409A. Our deferred compensation
arrangements are intended to either qualify for an exemption
from, or to comply with, Code Section 409A.
Compensation
Committee Report
Our compensation committee has reviewed and discussed the
Compensation Discussion and Analysis contained in
this
Form 10-K
with management. Based on our compensation committees
review and discussions with management, our compensation
committee recommended to our board of directors that the
Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this
Form 10-K.
Mark A. Williamson, Chair
Tryg C. Jacobson
Thomas A. Quadracci
Elizabeth Gamsky Rich
107
Summary
Compensation Table for Fiscal 2011
The following table sets forth for our NEOs the following
information for each of the past three fiscal years or for such
shorter period as the NEO has been an NEO: (i) the dollar
amount of base salary earned; (ii) the dollar value of
bonuses and non-equity incentive plan compensation earned;
(iii) the grant date fair value, determined under
Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718 (ASC Topic
718), for all equity-based awards held by our NEOs;
(iv) all other compensation; and (v) the dollar value
of total compensation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option
|
|
Incentive Plan
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal
|
|
Salary
|
|
Bonus
|
|
Awards
|
|
Compensation
|
|
Compensation
|
|
Total
|
Name and Current Principal Position
|
|
Year
|
|
($)
|
|
($)
|
|
($)(1)
|
|
($)
|
|
($)
|
|
($)
|
|
Neal R. Verfuerth
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
$
|
460,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
67,467
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
68,655
|
(2)
|
|
$
|
596,122
|
|
Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
460,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
75,991
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59,943
|
|
|
|
595,934
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
460,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
340,041
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
101,028
|
|
|
|
901,069
|
|
Scott R. Jensen
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
200,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,372
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
144
|
(4)
|
|
|
220,516
|
|
Chief Financial
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
173,750
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
336,464
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
144
|
|
|
|
510,358
|
|
Officer and Treasurer(3)
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
150,417
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51,522
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
144
|
|
|
|
202,083
|
|
Michael J. Potts
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
260,016
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22,918
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,530
|
(6)
|
|
|
299,465
|
|
President and Chief
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
225,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,331
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,194
|
|
|
|
266,525
|
|
Operating Officer(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John H. Scribante
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
254,437
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32,999
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,673
|
(7)
|
|
|
295,109
|
|
President of Orion
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
225,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
482,831
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
707,831
|
|
Engineered Systems
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
225,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66,977
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
291,977
|
|
Daniel J. Waibel
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
225,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32,999
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,392
|
(8)
|
|
|
271,391
|
|
President of Orion Asset
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
225,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,960
|
|
|
|
237,960
|
|
Management Division
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
225,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37,222
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,055
|
|
|
|
275,277
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents the grant date fair value calculated pursuant to ASC
Topic 718 for the indicated fiscal year. Additional information
about the assumptions that we used when valuing equity awards is
set forth in our Annual Report on
Form 10-K
in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for our fiscal
year ended March 31, 2011. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes (i) an automobile allowance of $12,000;
(ii) $27,462 in life insurance premiums; and
(iii) personal use of leased corporate aircraft with an
aggregate incremental cost of $29,193. The aggregate incremental
cost of the aircraft was calculated as follows: the actual per
mileage cost for fiscal 2011 multiplied by the personal miles
flown during fiscal 2011. |
|
(3) |
|
Mr. Jensen became our chief accounting officer and
treasurer effective as of April 1, 2011. Previously,
Mr. Jensen had served as our chief financial officer since
July 2008. |
|
(4) |
|
401(k) matching contribution. |
|
(5) |
|
Mr. Potts became our president and chief operating officer
effective as of July 21, 2010. |
|
(6) |
|
Includes an automobile allowance of $12,000 and $4,530 in life
insurance premiums;. |
|
(7) |
|
Includes personal use of leased corporate aircraft of $7,673. |
|
(8) |
|
Includes (i) an automobile allowance of $12,000;
(ii) $1,242 in life insurance premiums; and 401(k) matching
contribution of $150. |
108
Grants of
Plan-Based Awards for Fiscal 2011
As described above in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis,
under our 2004 Stock and Incentive Awards Plan and employment
agreements with certain of our NEOs, we granted stock options
and non-equity incentive awards (i.e., cash bonuses) to certain
of our NEOs in fiscal 2011. The following table sets forth
information regarding all such stock options and awards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option
|
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awards:
|
|
|
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated Future Payouts Under
|
|
Estimated Future Payouts
|
|
Number of
|
|
Exercise
|
|
Fair
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Equity Incentive Plan
|
|
Under Equity Incentive
|
|
Securities
|
|
Price of
|
|
Value of
|
|
|
|
|
Date of
|
|
Awards(1)
|
|
Plan Awards
|
|
Underlying
|
|
Option
|
|
Option
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
Committee
|
|
Threshold
|
|
Target
|
|
Max
|
|
Threshold
|
|
Target
|
|
Max
|
|
Options
|
|
Awards
|
|
Awards
|
Name
|
|
Date
|
|
Action
|
|
($)
|
|
($)
|
|
($)
|
|
(#)
|
|
(#)
|
|
(#)
|
|
(#)(2)
|
|
($/Sh)(3)
|
|
($)(4)
|
|
Neal R. Verfuerth
|
|
|
5/18/10
|
|
|
|
5/12/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
88,627
|
|
|
|
2,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,207
|
|
|
|
3.46
|
|
|
|
67,467
|
|
Scott R. Jensen
|
|
|
5/18/10
|
|
|
|
5/12/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,814
|
|
|
|
2,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,329
|
|
|
|
3.46
|
|
|
|
20,372
|
|
Michael J. Potts
|
|
|
5/18/10
|
|
|
|
5/12/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,916
|
|
|
|
2,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,620
|
|
|
|
3.46
|
|
|
|
22,918
|
|
John H. Scribante
|
|
|
5/18/10
|
|
|
|
5/12/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43,350
|
|
|
|
2,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,731
|
|
|
|
3.46
|
|
|
|
32,999
|
|
Daniel J. Waibel
|
|
|
5/18/10
|
|
|
|
5/12/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,916
|
|
|
|
2,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,731
|
|
|
|
3.46
|
|
|
|
32,999
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Amounts in the three columns below represent possible payments
for the cash bonus incentive compensation awards that we granted
with respect to the performance period of fiscal 2011. No cash
bonuses were paid for fiscal 2011. See Elements of
Compensation Annual Cash Bonus Incentive
Compensation above for a discussion. |
|
(2) |
|
We granted the stock options listed in this column under our
2004 Stock and Incentive Awards Plan in fiscal 2011. |
|
(3) |
|
The exercise price per share is equal to closing market price of
a share of our Common Stock on the grant date. |
|
(4) |
|
Represents the grant date fair value of the stock options
computed in accordance with ASC Topic 718. |
109
Outstanding
Equity Awards at Fiscal 2011 Year End
The following table sets out information on outstanding stock
option awards held by our NEOs at the end of our fiscal 2011 on
March 31, 2011, including the number of shares underlying
both exercisable and unexercisable portions of each stock
option, as well as the exercise price and expiration date of
each outstanding option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option Awards
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Underlying
|
|
Underlying
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unexercised
|
|
Unexercised
|
|
Option
|
|
Option
|
|
|
Options (#)
|
|
Options (#)
|
|
Exercise
|
|
Expiration
|
Name
|
|
Exercisable
|
|
Unexercisable
|
|
Price ($)
|
|
Date
|
|
Neal R. Verfuerth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,207
|
(1)
|
|
|
3.46
|
|
|
|
05/18/2020
|
|
|
|
|
7,055
|
|
|
|
28,221
|
(2)
|
|
|
3.78
|
|
|
|
05/19/2019
|
|
|
|
|
43,564
|
|
|
|
65,347
|
(3)
|
|
|
5.35
|
|
|
|
08/08/2018
|
|
|
|
|
154,546
|
|
|
|
50,000
|
(4)
|
|
|
2.20
|
|
|
|
12/20/2016
|
|
|
|
|
180,958
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.49
|
|
|
|
07/27/2011
|
|
Scott R. Jensen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,329
|
(5)
|
|
|
3.46
|
|
|
|
05/18/2020
|
|
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
|
|
80,000
|
(6)
|
|
|
5.44
|
|
|
|
02/05/2020
|
|
|
|
|
2,351
|
|
|
|
9,408
|
(7)
|
|
|
3.78
|
|
|
|
05/19/2019
|
|
|
|
|
6,600
|
|
|
|
9,902
|
(8)
|
|
|
5.35
|
|
|
|
08/08/2018
|
|
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
|
|
5,000
|
(9)
|
|
|
2.20
|
|
|
|
03/01/2017
|
|
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
|
|
08/30/2014
|
|
Michael J. Potts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,620
|
(10)
|
|
|
3.46
|
|
|
|
05/18/2020
|
|
|
|
|
2,351
|
|
|
|
9,408
|
(11)
|
|
|
3.78
|
|
|
|
05/19/2019
|
|
|
|
|
8,580
|
|
|
|
12,872
|
(12)
|
|
|
5.35
|
|
|
|
08/08/2018
|
|
|
|
|
30,000
|
|
|
|
15,000
|
(13)
|
|
|
2.20
|
|
|
|
12/20/2016
|
|
John H. Scribante
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,731
|
(14)
|
|
|
3.46
|
|
|
|
05/18/2020
|
|
|
|
|
100,000
|
|
|
|
150,000
|
(15)
|
|
|
3.01
|
|
|
|
09/01/2019
|
|
|
|
|
2,351
|
|
|
|
9,408
|
(16)
|
|
|
3.78
|
|
|
|
05/19/2019
|
|
|
|
|
8,580
|
|
|
|
12,872
|
(17)
|
|
|
5.35
|
|
|
|
08/08/2018
|
|
|
|
|
40,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.50
|
|
|
|
06/02/2016
|
|
|
|
|
25,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
|
|
07/31/2014
|
|
Daniel J. Waibel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,731
|
(18)
|
|
|
3.46
|
|
|
|
05/18/2020
|
|
|
|
|
10,560
|
|
|
|
15,843
|
(19)
|
|
|
5.35
|
|
|
|
08/08/2018
|
|
|
|
|
80,000
|
|
|
|
20,000
|
(20)
|
|
|
2.20
|
|
|
|
12/20/2016
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
This option vested with respect to 20% of the option shares on
May 18, 2011, and will vest in 20% increments on
May 18, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively, contingent
on Mr. Verfuerths continued employment through the
applicable vesting date. |
|
(2) |
|
The option vested with respect to 7,055 shares on
May 19, 2011 and will vest with respect to
7,055 shares on May 19 of each of 2012 and 2013 and with
respect to 7,056 shares on May 19, 2014, contingent on
Mr. Verfuerths continued employment through the
applicable vesting date. |
|
(3) |
|
The option will vest with respect to 21,782 shares on
August 8 of each of 2011 and 2012 and with respect to
21,783 shares on August 8, 2013, contingent on
Mr. Verfuerths continued employment through the
applicable vesting date. |
|
(4) |
|
The option will vest with respect to 50,000 shares on
December 20, 2011, contingent on Mr. Verfuerths
continued employment through the applicable vesting date. |
|
(5) |
|
This option vested with respect to 20% of the option shares on
May 18, 2011 and will vest in 20% increments on
May 18, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively, contingent
on Mr. Jensens continued employment through the
applicable vesting date. |
|
(6) |
|
The option will vest with respect to 20,000 shares on
February 5 of each of 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, contingent on
Mr. Jensens continued employment through the
applicable vesting date. |
110
|
|
|
(7) |
|
The option vested with respect to 2,352 shares on
May 19, 2011 and will vest with respect to
2,352 shares on May 19 of each of 2012, 2013 and 2014,
contingent on Mr. Jensens continued employment
through the applicable vesting date. |
|
(8) |
|
The option will vest with respect to 3,300 shares on
August 8, 2011 and will vest with respect to
3,301 shares on August 8 of each of 2012 and 2013,
contingent on Mr. Jensens continued employment
through the applicable vesting date. |
|
(9) |
|
The option will vest with respect to 5,000 shares on
March 1, 2012, contingent on Mr. Jensens
continued employment through the applicable vesting date. |
|
(10) |
|
This option vested with respect to 20% of the option shares on
May 18, 2011 and will vest in 20% increments on
May 18, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively, contingent
on Mr. Potts continued employment through the
applicable vesting date. |
|
(11) |
|
The option vested with respect to 2,352 shares on
May 19, 2011 and will vest with respect to
2,352 shares on May 19 of each of 2012, 2013 and 2014,
contingent on Mr. Potts continued employment through
the applicable vesting date. |
|
(12) |
|
The option will vest with respect to 4,290 shares on
August 8, 2011 and will vest with respect to
4,291 shares on August 8 of each of 2012 and 2013,
contingent on Mr. Potts continued employment through
the applicable vesting date. |
|
(13) |
|
The option will vest with respect to 15,000 shares on
December 20, 2011, contingent on Mr. Potts
continued employment through the applicable vesting date. |
|
(14) |
|
This option vested with respect to 20% of the option shares on
May 18, 2011 and will vest in 20% increments on
May 18, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively, contingent
on Mr. Scribantes continued employment through the
applicable vesting date. |
|
(15) |
|
The option will vest in 50,000 share increments when our
Common Stocks average closing price over five consecutive
trading days equals or exceeds $6.00, $7.00 and $8.00 per share,
respectively, contingent on Mr. Scribantes continued
employment through the applicable vesting date. |
|
(16) |
|
The option vested with respect to 2,352 shares on
May 19, 2011 and will vest with respect to
2,352 shares on May 19 of each of 2012, 2013 and 2014,
contingent on Mr. Scribantes continued employment
through the applicable vesting date. |
|
(17) |
|
The option will vest with respect to 4,290 shares on
August 8, 2011, and with respect to 4,291 shares on
August 8 of each of 2012 and 2013, contingent on
Mr. Scribantes continued employment through the
applicable vesting date. |
|
(18) |
|
This option vested with respect to 20% of the option shares on
May 18, 2011 and will vest in 20% increments on
May 18, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively, contingent
on Mr. Waibels continued employment through the
applicable vesting date. |
|
(19) |
|
The option will vest with respect to 5,281 shares on August
8 of each of 2011, 2012 and 2013, contingent on
Mr. Waibels continued employment through the
applicable vesting date. |
|
(20) |
|
The option will vest with respect to 20,000 shares on
December 20, 2011, contingent on Mr. Waibels
continued employment through the applicable vesting date. |
111
Option
Exercises for Fiscal 2011
The following table sets forth information regarding the
exercise of stock options that occurred during fiscal 2011 on an
aggregated basis for each of our NEOs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option Awards
|
|
|
Number of Shares
|
|
|
|
|
Acquired on
|
|
Value Realized
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
on Exercise
|
Name
|
|
(#)
|
|
($)(1)
|
|
Neal R. Verfuerth
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
|
|
19,200
|
|
Scott R. Jensen
|
|
|
1,000
|
|
|
|
2,500
|
|
Michael J. Potts
|
|
|
30,000
|
|
|
|
1,200
|
|
John H. Scribante
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel J. Waibel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents the difference, if any, between the closing sale
price of a share of our Common Stock on the date of exercise of
the shares purchased and the aggregate exercise price per share
paid by the executive. |
Payments
Upon Termination or Change of Control
Employment
Agreements
Under the employment agreements we currently have with each of
our NEOs other than Mr. Waibel, our NEOs are entitled to
certain severance payments and other benefits upon a qualifying
employment termination, including certain enhanced protections
under such circumstances occurring after a change in control of
our company. If the executives employment is terminated
without cause or for good reason prior
to the end of the employment period, the executive will be
entitled to a lump sum severance benefit equal to a multiple
(indicated in the table below) of the sum of his base salary
plus the average of the prior three years bonuses; a pro
rata bonus for the year of the termination; and COBRA premiums
at the active employee rate for the duration of the
executives COBRA continuation coverage period. To receive
these benefits, the executive must execute and deliver to us
(and not revoke) a general release of claims.
Cause is defined in the new employment
agreements as a good faith finding by our board of directors
that the executive has (i) failed, neglected, or refused to
perform the lawful employment duties related to his position or
that we assigned to him (other than due to disability);
(ii) committed any willful, intentional, or grossly
negligent act having the effect of materially injuring our
interests, business, or reputation; (iii) violated or
failed to comply in any material respect with our published
rules, regulations, or policies; (iv) committed an act
constituting a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude,
fraud, theft, or dishonesty; (v) misappropriated or
embezzled any of our property (whether or not an act
constituting a felony or misdemeanor); or (vi) breached any
material provision of the employment agreement or any other
applicable confidentiality, non-compete, non-solicit, general
release, covenant
not-to-sue,
or other agreement with us.
Good reason is defined in the new employment
agreements as the occurrence of any of the following without the
executives consent: (i) a material diminution in the
executives base salary; (ii) a material diminution in
the executives authority, duties or responsibilities;
(iii) a material diminution in the authority, duties or
responsibilities of the supervisor to whom the executive is
required to report; (iv) a material diminution in the
budget over which the executive retains authority; (v) a
material change in the geographic location at which the
executive must perform services; or (vi) a material breach
by us of any provision of the employment agreement.
112
The severance multiples, employment and renewal terms and
restrictive covenants under the employment agreements, prior to
any change of control occurring, are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employment
|
|
Renewal
|
|
Noncompete and
|
Executive
|
|
Severance
|
|
Term
|
|
Term
|
|
Confidentiality
|
|
Neal R. Verfuerth
|
|
|
2 × Salary + Avg. Bonus
|
|
|
|
2 Years
|
|
|
|
2 Years
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
|
Scott R. Jensen
|
|
|
1/2 × Salary + Avg. Bonus
|
|
|
|
1 Year
|
|
|
|
1 Year
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
|
Michael J. Potts
|
|
|
1 × Salary + Avg. Bonus
|
|
|
|
1 Year
|
|
|
|
1 Year
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
|
John H. Scribante
|
|
|
1/2 × Salary + Avg. Bonus
|
|
|
|
1 Year
|
|
|
|
1 Year
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
|
We set the severance multiples, employment and renewal terms and
restrictive covenants under the new employment agreements based
on advice from Towers Watson received prior to our initial
public offering that such multiples and terms were then
consistent with general public company practice and our
subjective belief at the time that these amounts and terms were
necessary to provide our NEOs with compensation arrangements
that will help us to retain and attract high-quality executives
in a competitive job market. The severance multiples and
employment and renewal terms vary among our individual NEOs
based on the advice of Towers Watson received prior to our
initial public offering that such multiples and terms were then
consistent with general public company practice and our
subjective judgment. We did not ascertain the basis or support
for Towers Watsons advice that such multiples and other
terms are consistent with general public company practice.
Our NEOs employment agreements also provide enhanced
benefits following a change of control of our company. Upon a
change of control, the executives employment term is
automatically extended for a specified period, which varies
among the individual executives as shown in the chart below.
Following the change of control, the executive is guaranteed the
same base salary and a bonus opportunity at least equal to 100%
of the prior years target award and with the same general
probability of achieving performance goals as was in effect
prior to the change of control. In addition, the executive is
guaranteed participation in salaried and executive benefit plans
that provide benefits, in the aggregate, at least as great as
the benefits being provided prior to the change of control.
The severance provisions remain the same as in the pre-change of
control context as described above, except that the multiplier
used to determine the severance amount and the post change of
control employment term increases, as is shown in the table
below. The table also indicates the provisions in the employment
agreements regarding triggering events and the treatment of
payments under the agreements if the non-deductibility and
excise tax provisions of Code Sections 280G and 4999 are
triggered, as discussed below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post Change
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of Control
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employment
|
|
|
|
Excise Tax
|
|
|
Executive
|
|
Severance
|
|
Term
|
|
Trigger
|
|
Gross-Up
|
|
Valley
|
|
Neal R. Verfuerth
|
|
|
3 × Salary + Avg. Bonus
|
|
|
|
3 Years
|
|
|
|
Double
|
|
|
|
No
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
|
Scott R. Jensen
|
|
|
1 × Salary + Avg. Bonus
|
|
|
|
1 Year
|
|
|
|
Double
|
|
|
|
No
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
|
Michael J. Potts
|
|
|
2 × Salary + Avg. Bonus
|
|
|
|
2 Years
|
|
|
|
Double
|
|
|
|
No
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
|
John H. Scribante
|
|
|
1 × Salary + Avg. Bonus
|
|
|
|
1 Year
|
|
|
|
Double
|
|
|
|
No
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
|
Prior to our initial public offering, we set the post change of
control severance multiples and employment terms under our
NEOs employment agreements based on our belief at the time
that these amounts and terms would provide appropriate levels of
protection for our NEOs to enable them to focus their efforts on
behalf of our company without undue concern for their employment
or financial security following a change in control. In making
this determination, our compensation committee considered
information provided by Towers Watson prior to our initial
public offering indicating that the proposed change of control
severance multiples and employment terms were then generally
consistent with the practices of Towers Watsons surveyed
companies.
A change of control under the employment agreements generally
occurs when a third party acquires 20% or more of our
outstanding stock, there is a hostile board election, a merger
occurs in which our shareholders cease to own 50% of the equity
of the successor, we are liquidated or dissolved, or
substantially all of our assets are sold. We have agreed to
treat these events as triggering events under the employment
agreements because such events would represent significant
changes in the ownership of our company and could signal
potential uncertainty regarding the job or financial security of
our NEOs. Specifically, we believe that an acquisition by a
third party of 20% or more of
113
our outstanding stock would constitute a significant change in
ownership of our company because we have a relatively diverse,
widely-dispersed shareholder base. We believe the types of
protections provided under our employment agreements better
enable our executives to focus their efforts on behalf of our
company during such times of uncertainty.
The employment agreements contain a valley excise
tax provision to address Code Sections 280G and 4999
non-deductibility and excise taxes on excess parachute
payments. Code Sections 280G and 4999 may affect
the deductibility of, and impose additional excise taxes on,
certain payments that are made upon or in connection with a
change of control. The valley provision provides that all
amounts payable under the employment agreement and any other of
our agreements or plans that constitute change of control
payments will be cut back to one dollar less than three times
the executives base amount, as defined by Code
Section 280G, unless the executive would retain a greater
amount by receiving the full amount of the payment and
personally paying the excise taxes. Under the employment
agreements, we are not obligated to gross up executives for any
excise taxes imposed on excess parachute payments under Code
Section 280G or 4999.
Equity
Plans
Our equity plans provide for certain benefits in the event of
certain changes of control. Under both our existing 2003 Stock
Option Plan and our 2004 Stock and Incentive Awards Plan, if
there is a change of control, our compensation committee may,
among other things, accelerate the exercisability of all
outstanding stock options
and/or
require that all outstanding options be cashed out. Our 2003
Stock Option Plan defines a change of control as the occurrence
of any of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
With certain exceptions, any person (as such term is
used in sections 13(d) and l4(d) of the Exchange Act),
becomes a beneficial owner (as defined in
Rule 13d-3
under the Exchange Act), directly or indirectly, of securities
representing more than 50% of the voting power of our then
outstanding securities.
|
|
|
|
Our shareholders approve (or, if shareholder approval is not
required, our board approves) an agreement providing for
(i) our merger or consolidation with another entity where
our shareholders immediately prior to the merger or
consolidation will not beneficially own, immediately after the
merger or consolidation, securities of the surviving entity
representing more than 50% of the voting power of the then
outstanding securities of the surviving entity, (ii) the
sale or other disposition of all or substantially all of our
assets, or (iii) our liquidation or dissolution.
|
|
|
|
Any person has commenced a tender offer or exchange offer for
30% or more of the voting power of our then outstanding shares.
|
|
|
|
Directors are elected such that a majority of the members of our
board shall have been members of our board for less than two
years, unless the election or nomination for election of each
new director who was not a director at the beginning of such
two-year period was approved by a vote of at least two-thirds of
the directors then still in office who were directors at the
beginning of such period.
|
A change of control under our 2004 Stock and Incentive Awards
Plan generally occurs when a third party acquires 20% or more of
our outstanding stock, there is a hostile board election, a
merger occurs in which our shareholders cease to own 50% of the
equity of the successor, or we are liquidated or dissolved or
substantially all of our assets are sold.
114
Payments
Upon Termination
The following table summarizes the estimated value of payments
and other benefits to which our NEOs would have been entitled
under the employment agreements and equity plans described above
upon certain terminations of employment, assuming, solely for
purposes of such calculations, that (i) the triggering
event or events occurred on March 31, 2011 and (ii) in
the case of a change of control, the vesting of all stock
options held by our NEOs was accelerated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without
|
|
|
|
|
Without
|
|
Cause or for
|
|
|
|
|
Cause or for Good
|
|
Good Reason in Connection
|
Name
|
|
Benefit
|
|
Reason ($)
|
|
With a Change of Control ($)
|
|
Neal R. Verfuerth
|
|
Severance
|
|
|
1,114,667
|
|
|
|
1,672,000
|
|
|
|
Pro Rata Target Bonus
|
|
|
88,627
|
|
|
|
88,627
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
13,908
|
|
|
|
13,908
|
|
|
|
Acceleration of Options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
119,178
|
|
|
|
Excise Tax Cut-Back
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,217,202
|
|
|
|
1,893,713
|
|
Scott R. Jensen
|
|
Severance
|
|
|
116,667
|
|
|
|
233,333
|
|
|
|
Pro Rata Target Bonus
|
|
|
16,814
|
|
|
|
16,814
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
21,251
|
|
|
|
21,251
|
|
|
|
Acceleration of Options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,638
|
|
|
|
Excise Tax Cut-Back
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
154,732
|
|
|
|
289,036
|
|
Michael J. Potts
|
|
Severance
|
|
|
296,667
|
|
|
|
593,333
|
|
|
|
Pro Rata Target Bonus
|
|
|
18,916
|
|
|
|
18,916
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
21,251
|
|
|
|
21,251
|
|
|
|
Acceleration of Options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36,788
|
|
|
|
Excise Tax Cut-Back
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
336,834
|
|
|
|
670,288
|
|
John H. Scribante
|
|
Severance
|
|
|
147,500
|
|
|
|
295,000
|
|
|
|
Pro Rata Target Bonus
|
|
|
43,350
|
|
|
|
43,350
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acceleration of Options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
166,653
|
|
|
|
Excise Tax Cut-Back
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
190,850
|
|
|
|
505,000
|
|
Daniel J. Waibel
|
|
Severance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro Rata Target Bonus
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acceleration of Options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46,505
|
|
|
|
Excise Tax Cut-Back
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46,505
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
1,899,616
|
|
|
|
3,404,544
|
|
Payments
Upon Change of Control (No Termination)
If a change of control had occurred at the end of our fiscal
2011 on March 31, 2011, and our compensation committee had
accelerated the vesting of all of the unvested stock options
then held by our NEOs and cashed them out for a payment equal to
the product of (i) the number of shares underlying such
options and (ii) the excess, if any, of the closing price
per share of our Common Stock on such date and the exercise
price per share of such options, our NEOs would have received
approximately the following benefits:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Unvested Option
|
|
|
|
|
Shares Accelerated and Cashed Out
|
|
|
Name
|
|
(#)
|
|
Value Realized ($)
|
|
Neal R. Verfuerth
|
|
|
177,775
|
|
|
$
|
119,178
|
|
Scott R. Jensen
|
|
|
114,639
|
|
|
|
17,638
|
|
Michael J. Potts
|
|
|
48,900
|
|
|
|
36,788
|
|
John H. Scribante
|
|
|
176,139
|
|
|
|
166,653
|
|
Daniel J. Waibel
|
|
|
52,574
|
|
|
|
46,505
|
|
115
RISK
ASSESSMENT OF OUR COMPENSATION POLICIES AND PRACTICES
We believe that we have designed a balanced approach to our
compensation programs that rewards both our NEOs and our other
key employees for achieving our annual and longer-term strategic
objectives and financial and business performance goals that we
believe will help us achieve sustained growth and success over
the long term. We believe that our compensation committee has
structured our total executive compensation to ensure that there
is a focus on incentivizing and rewarding both near-term
financial performance and sustained long-term shareholder
appreciation. While it is possible that the pursuit of our
strategic objectives and our annual financial performance
targets that determine our annual bonus payouts may lead to
employee behavior that may increase certain risks to our
company, we believe that we have designed our compensation
programs to help mitigate against such concerns and to help
ensure that our compensation practices and decisions are
consistent with our strategic business plan and our enterprise
risk profile.
At its meeting in June 2011, our compensation committee
conducted a review of our compensation policies and practices to
assess whether any risks arising from such policies and
practices are reasonably likely to materially adversely affect
our company. In this regard, our compensation committee took the
following actions:
|
|
|
|
|
Identified our material compensation arrangements and
categorized them according to the levels of potential
risk-taking behaviors that our compensation committee believes
they may encourage.
|
|
|
|
Met with our chief financial officer to develop a better
understanding of our enterprise risk profile and the material
risks, including reputational risk and those described under
Part I, Item 1A, Risk Factors, in our
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011, that we face and
the relationship of our compensation policies and practices to
those identified enterprise-related risks.
|
|
|
|
Evaluated the levels of potential risk-taking that may be
encouraged by each material compensation arrangement to
determine whether it is appropriate in the context of our
overall compensation arrangements, our objectives for our
compensation arrangements, our strategic goals and objectives
and our enterprise risk profile.
|
|
|
|
Identified and evaluated the likely effectiveness of the
risk-mitigation attributes contained in our compensation
policies and practices, as set forth below.
|
As part of its review of our compensation policies and
practices, our compensation committee identified the following
attributes that it believes help to mitigate against the
potential for excessive or unnecessary risks to be realized by
our company as a result of our compensation policies and
practices:
|
|
|
|
|
We believe that we have set base salaries at a sufficient level
to discourage excessive or unnecessary risk taking. We believe
that base salary, as a non-variable element of compensation,
helps to moderate the incentives to incur risk in the pursuit of
increased financial performance metrics that are directly tied
to the payment of variable elements of compensation. To perform
its moderating function, we believe that base salary should make
up a substantial portion of target total compensation. Our
NEOs fiscal 2011 base salaries were, on average, more than
75% of their fiscal 2011 total actual compensation. Although we
do not expect base salaries to continue to comprise such a
significant portion of total actual compensation, we intend for
base salary to make up a substantial portion of target total
compensation in future years. We also did not increase base
salaries for executives in either fiscal 2011 or fiscal 2012
pending significantly improved operating results.
|
|
|
|
Our incentive compensation goals are directly tied to and
support our strategic business plan and are based upon annual
operating budget levels that are reviewed and approved by our
board of directors and that we believe are attainable at their
targeted levels without the need to (i) take excessive or
unnecessary risks; (ii) take actions that would violate our
Code of Conduct; or (iii) make material changes to our
long-term business strategy or our methods of management or
operation.
|
|
|
|
Our fiscal 2012 incentive compensation program includes an
overall limit on the number of option shares that may be granted
and caps the amount of the cash bonus opportunity.
|
|
|
|
We use three different corporate financial performance metrics,
revenue, net income and free cash flow, under our fiscal 2012
incentive compensation program, as well as the price of our
common stock, to
|
116
|
|
|
|
|
determine the total amount of our incentive compensation awards
to our named executive officers and certain other
management-level employees. We believe that using different
financial metrics helps to mitigate excessive or unnecessary
risk taking and the motivation to focus on achieving any single
financial performance measure that is directly tied to the
amount of our incentive compensation awards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Almost all of our incentive compensation awards for fiscal 2012
(other than the cash bonus opportunity for extraordinary
performance) are equity-based so that employees who receive
these equity-based awards may only realize value through the
sustained long-term appreciation of our shareholder value. We
also believe that the overall size of the potential incentive
compensation program is moderate and is spread over a broad
group of employees.
|
|
|
|
We have implemented stock ownership guidelines for all of our
executive officers, which we believe help to focus them on
long-term stock price appreciation and sustainability.
|
|
|
|
We have adopted a clawback policy as an additional
risk mitigation provision. Our clawback policy calls on our
board of directors to require reimbursement from any officer of
an amount equal to the amount of any overpayment or
overrealization of any incentive compensation paid to, or
realized by, the officer if:
|
|
|
|
The payment or vesting of incentive compensation was predicated
upon the achievement of certain company financial or operating
results with respect to the applicable performance period that
were subsequently the subject of a material financial statement
restatement (other than a restatement due to subsequent changes
in generally accepted accounting principles, policies or
practices) that adversely affects our prior announced or stated
financial results, financial condition or cash flows;
|
|
|
|
In our boards view, the recipient engaged in misconduct
that caused, partially caused or otherwise contributed to the
need for the financial statement restatement; and
|
|
|
|
Vesting would not have occurred, or no payment or a lower
payment would have been made to the recipient, based upon our
restated financial results, financial condition or cash flow.
|
As a result of this review, which our compensation committee
intends to continue to conduct annually, our compensation
committee did not believe that our compensation policies and
practices encourage excessive or unnecessary risk-taking in
light of our strategic plan, business objectives and our
enterprise risk profile. Accordingly, our compensation committee
did not implement any material changes in response to this
review.
Director
Compensation
We offer the following compensation program for our non-employee
directors: (a) an annual retainer of $40,000, payable in
cash or shares of our Common Stock at the election of the
recipient; (b) an annual stock option grant, vesting
ratably over three years, with a grant date fair value of
$45,000; (c) an annual retainer of $15,000 for each of the
independent chairman of our board of directors, the independent
lead director and the chairman of the audit and finance
committee of our board of directors, payable in cash or shares
of Common Stock at the election of the recipient; and
(d) an annual retainer of $10,000 for each of the chairmen
of the compensation committee and the nominating and corporate
governance committee of our board of directors, payable in cash
or shares of Common Stock at the election of the recipient. In
order to attract potential new independent directors in the
future, our board of directors has retained the flexibility to
make an initial stock option or other form of equity-based grant
or a cash award to any such new non-employee directors upon
joining our board. In connection with Mr. Kackleys
election as non-executive chairman of our board on
August 25, 2010, we modified our existing compensation
program to provide for an annual retainer of $20,000 for his
role as non-executive chairman.
All non-management directors are required to own at least
25,000 shares. Directors are permitted to satisfy these
ownership guidelines with shares of our Common Stock that they
acquire through the exercise of stock options or other similar
equity-based awards, through retention upon vesting of
restricted shares or other similar equity-based awards and
through direct share purchases. Our directors who were directors
at the time of the adoption of the amended guidelines have until
the fifth anniversary of the adoption to satisfy the ownership
requirement. Newly elected directors will have until the fifth
anniversary of their election to satisfy the ownership
requirement. All of our directors have either satisfied the
ownership requirement or have additional time to do so.
117
Director
Compensation for Fiscal 2011
The following table summarizes the compensation of our
non-employee directors for fiscal 2011. As employee directors,
neither Mr. Verfuerth nor Mr. Potts received any
compensation for their service as directors, and they are
therefore omitted from the table. Mr. Jacobson is omitted
from the table because he joined our board on May 31, 2011
and was not a director in fiscal 2010. We reimbursed each of our
directors, including our employee directors, for expenses
incurred in connection with attendance at meetings of our board
and its committees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fees Earned
|
|
Option
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or Paid in
|
|
Awards
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
Name
|
|
Cash ($)(1)
|
|
($)(2)(3)
|
|
Compensation ($)
|
|
Total ($)
|
|
Michael W. Altschaefl
|
|
|
55,000
|
|
|
|
32,361
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
87,361
|
|
James R. Kackley(4)
|
|
|
40,000
|
|
|
|
32,361
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72,361
|
|
Thomas A. Quadracci
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
|
32,361
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82,361
|
|
Elizabeth Gamsky Rich(5)
|
|
|
30,932
|
|
|
|
26,430
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57,362
|
|
Thomas N. Schueller(6)
|
|
|
30,000
|
|
|
|
32,361
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62,361
|
|
Roland G. Stephenson(7)
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
|
|
32,361
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52,361
|
|
Mark C. Williamson
|
|
|
65,000
|
|
|
|
32,361
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
97,361
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
As permitted under our compensation program for non-employee
directors, the following directors elected to received the
following portions of their fiscal 2011 retainer in shares of
our Common Stock: Mr. Altschaefl $41,250, which
equated to 12,281 shares; Mr. Stephenson
$10,000, which equated to 3,194 shares. |
|
(2) |
|
Represents the grant date fair value of the awards pursuant to
ASC Topic 718. Additional information about the assumptions that
we used when valuing equity awards is set forth in our Annual
Report on
Form 10-K
in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for our fiscal
year ended March 31, 2011. |
|
(3) |
|
The option awards outstanding as of March 31, 2011 for each
non-employee director were as follows: Mr. Altschaefl held
options to purchase 25,203 shares of our Common Stock;
Mr. Kackley held options to purchase 90,346 shares of
our Common Stock; Mr. Quadracci held options to purchase
55,346 shares of our Common Stock; Ms. Gamsky Rich
held options to purchase 19,912 shares of our Common Stock;
Mr. Schueller held options to purchase 19,912 shares
of our Common Stock; and Mr. Williamson held options to
purchase 30,495 shares of our Common Stock. All options
vest ratably over a three-year continued board service period. |
|
(4) |
|
As disclosed above, on July 22, 2009, Mr. Kackley
became our president and chief operating officer. He retired
from those positions effective May 14, 2010 but remains a
director of our company and, since August 25, 2010,
non-executive chairman of our board. |
|
(5) |
|
Ms. Rich was appointed to our board of directors on
June 23, 2010. |
|
(6) |
|
Mr. Schueller was appointed to our board of directors on
April 28, 2010. |
|
(7) |
|
Mr. Stephenson resigned from our board of directors on
August 25, 2010. |
|
|
ITEM 12.
|
SECURITY
OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND
RELATED SHAREHOLDER MATTERS
|
Security
Ownership Of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management
The following table sets forth certain information regarding the
beneficial ownership of our Common Stock as of May 31,
2011, by:
|
|
|
|
|
each person (or group of affiliated persons) known to us to be
the beneficial owner of more than 5% of our Common Stock;
|
|
|
|
each of our named executive officers;
|
|
|
|
each of our directors; and
|
|
|
|
all of our directors and current executive officers as a group.
|
118
Beneficial ownership is determined in accordance with the rules
of the SEC and includes any shares over which a person exercises
sole or shared voting or investment power. Under these rules,
beneficial ownership also includes any shares as to which the
individual or entity has the right to acquire beneficial
ownership of within 60 days of May 31, 2011, through
the exercise of any warrant, stock option or other right. Except
as noted by footnote, and subject to community property laws
where applicable, we believe that the shareholders named in the
table below have sole voting and investment power with respect
to all shares of Common Stock shown as beneficially owned by
them.
Except as set forth below, the address of all shareholders
listed under Directors and executive officers is
c/o Orion
Energy Systems, Inc. 2210 Woodland Drive, Manitowoc, WI 54220.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares Beneficially Owned
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
Directors and executive officers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neal R. Verfuerth(1)
|
|
|
2,207,883
|
|
|
|
9.5
|
%
|
Michael J. Potts(2)
|
|
|
467,961
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
%
|
John Scribante(3)
|
|
|
220,447
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Daniel J. Waibel(4)
|
|
|
768,309
|
|
|
|
3.4
|
%
|
Scott R. Jensen(5)
|
|
|
72,371
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
James R. Kackley(6)
|
|
|
316,521
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
Michael W. Altschaefl(7)
|
|
|
34,102
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Tryg C. Jacobson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Thomas A. Quadracci(8)
|
|
|
125,121
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Elizabeth G. Rich
|
|
|
3,591
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Thomas N. Schueller(9)
|
|
|
12,138
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
Mark C. Williamson(10)
|
|
|
23,694
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
All current directors and executive officers as a group (16
individuals)(11)
|
|
|
4,271,523
|
|
|
|
18.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Principal shareholders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GE Capital Equity Investments, Inc.(12)
|
|
|
1,570,990
|
|
|
|
6.9
|
%
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Indicates less than 1%. |
|
(1) |
|
Consists of (i) 1,807,861 shares of Common Stock; and
(ii) 400,022 shares of Common Stock issuable upon the
exercise of vested and exercisable options. The number does not
reflect (i) 200,042 shares of Common Stock subject to
options held by Mr. Verfuerth that will not become
exercisable within 60 days of May 31, 2011. |
|
(2) |
|
Consists of (i) 422,352 shares of Common Stock; and
(ii) 45,609 shares of Common Stock issuable upon the
exercise of vested and exercisable options. The number does not
include 65,843 shares of Common Stock subject to options
held by Mr. Potts that will not become exercisable within
60 days of May 31, 2011. |
|
(3) |
|
Consists of (i) 23,815 shares of Common Stock owned by
Garden Villa on 3rd LLP; (ii) 15,000 shares of Common
Stock held in the TMS Trust; and (iii) 181,632 shares
of Common Stock issuable upon the exercise of vested and
exercisable options. The number does not include
204,931 shares of Common Stock subject to options held by
Mr. Scribante that will not become exercisable within
60 days of May 31, 2011. |
|
(4) |
|
Consists of (i) 674,400 shares of Common Stock; and
(ii) 93,909 shares of Common Stock issuable upon the
exercise of vested and exercisable options. The number does not
include 67,185 shares of Common Stock subject to options
held by Mr. Waibel that will not become exercisable within
60 days of May 31, 2011. |
|
(5) |
|
Consists of (i) 12,000 shares of Common Stock; and
(ii) 60,371 shares of Common Stock issuable upon the
exercise of vested and exercisable options. The number does not
include 125,943 shares of Common Stock subject to options
held by Mr. Jensen that will not become exercisable within
60 days of May 31, 2011. |
119
|
|
|
(6) |
|
Consists of (i) 197,976 shares of Common Stock;
(ii) 73,545 shares of Common Stock issuable upon the
exercise of vested and exercisable options; and
(iii) 45,000 shares of Common Stock beneficially owned
by Mr. Kackleys grandchildren. The number does not
include 38,846 shares of Common Stock subject to options
held by Mr. Kackley that will not become exercisable within
60 days of May 31, 2011. |
|
(7) |
|
Consists of (i) 25,700 shares of Common Stock; and
(ii) 8,402 shares of Common Stock issuable upon the
exercise of vested and exercisable options. The number does not
include 38,846 shares of Common Stock subject to options
held by Mr. Altschaefl that will not become exercisable
within 60 days of May 31, 2011. |
|
(8) |
|
Consists of (i) 82,976 shares of Common Stock;
(ii) 3,600 shares of Common Stock held by
Mr. Quadraccis wife; and
(iii) 38,545 shares of Common Stock issuable upon the
exercise of vested and exercisable options. The number does not
include 38,846 shares of Common Stock subject to options
held by Mr. Quadracci that will not become exercisable
within 60 days of May 31, 2011. |
|
(9) |
|
Consists of (i) 5,500 shares of Common Stock held in
an IRA; and (ii) 6,638 shares of Common Stock issuable
upon the exercise of vested and exercisable options. The number
does not include 35,319 shares of Common Stock subject to
options held by Mr. Schueller that will not become
exercisable within 60 days of May 31, 2011. |
|
(10) |
|
Consists of (i) 10,000 shares of Common Stock and
(ii) 13,694 shares of Common Stock issuable upon the
exercise of vested and exercisable options. The number does not
include 38,846 shares of Common Stock subject to options
held by Mr. Williamson that will not become exercisable
within 60 days of May 31, 2011. |
|
(11) |
|
Includes 934,020 shares of Common Stock issuable upon the
exercise of vested and exercisable options. The number does not
include 1,116,675 shares of Common Stock subject to options
that will not become exercisable within 60 days of
May 31, 2011. |
|
(12) |
|
The address of GE Capital Equity Investments, Inc., which we
refer to as GECEI, is 201 Merritt 7, Norwalk,
Connecticut 06851. Other than share ownership percentage
information, the information set forth is as of
December 31, 2010, as reported by GECEI in its
Schedule 13G filed with us and the SEC. |
|
|
ITEM 13.
|
CERTAIN
RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS AND DIRECTOR
INDEPENDENCE
|
Policies
and Procedures Governing Related Person Transactions
Our policy is to enter into transactions with related persons on
terms that, on the whole, are no less favorable to us than those
available from unaffiliated third parties. Our board of
directors has adopted written policies and procedures regarding
related person transactions. For purposes of these policies and
procedures:
|
|
|
|
|
a related person means any of our directors,
executive officers, nominees for director, holder of 5% or more
of our Common Stock or any of their immediate family
members; and
|
|
|
|
a related person transaction generally is a
transaction (including any indebtedness or a guarantee of
indebtedness) in which we were or are to be a participant and
the amount involved exceeds $120,000, and in which a related
person had or will have a direct or indirect material interest.
|
Each of our executive officers, directors or nominees for
director is required to disclose to our audit and finance
committee certain information relating to related person
transactions for review, approval or ratification by our audit
and finance committee. In making a determination about approval
or ratification of a related person transaction, our audit and
finance committee will consider the information provided
regarding the related person transaction and whether
consummation of the transaction is believed by the committee to
be in our best interests. Our audit and finance committee may
take into account the effect of a directors related person
transaction on the directors status as an independent
member of our board of directors and eligibility to serve on
committees of our board under SEC rules and the listing
standards of the NYSE Amex. Any related person transaction must
be disclosed to our full board of directors.
120
Related
Person Transactions
Set forth below are certain related person transactions that
occurred in our fiscal year 2010. Based on our experience in the
business sectors in which we participate and the terms of our
transactions with unaffiliated third persons, we believe that
all of the transactions set forth below (i) were on terms
and conditions that were not materially less favorable to us
than could have been obtained from unaffiliated third parties
and (ii) complied with the terms of our policies and
procedures regarding related person transactions. All of the
transactions set forth below have been ratified by our audit and
finance committee.
Thomas
A. Quadracci
During fiscal 2011, we received an aggregate of $37,000 for
products and services we sold to Quad/Graphics, Inc. In
addition, during fiscal 2011, we purchased an aggregate of no
products and services from Quad/Graphics, Inc. Thomas A.
Quadracci, who has been one of our directors since 2006, was the
executive chairman of Quad/Graphics, Inc. until January 1,
2007 and is a shareholder of Quad/Graphics, Inc.
James
R. Kackley
In February 2009, we entered into a charitable gift and
corporate stock repurchase agreement with James R. Kackley, who
was at the time one of our directors, who served as our
president and chief operating officer during part of fiscal 2010
and who currently serves as our non-executive chairman of the
board. Pursuant to the agreement, we became obligated to
purchase from a charitable organization shares of our Common
Stock worth $500,000 to be gifted to the organization by
Mr. Kackley. The purchases were to take place on five
advance specified dates, all of which have since occurred. The
dollar amount that we paid for the shares was fixed at an
aggregate of $500,000, and the number of shares repurchased
varied according to the closing price of our Common Stock on the
day prior to the specified purchase dates.
Neal
R. Verfuerth
In fiscal 2011, Josh Kurtz and Zach Kurtz, two of our national
account managers, received $175,682 and $171,612, respectively,
of compensation from us in their capacities as employees.
Included in this compensation was $20,618 related to the grant
date fair value calculated pursuant to ASC Topic 718 for stock
options granted during the fiscal year. Messrs. Kurtz and
Kurtz are the sons of Neal R. Verfuerth, our chief executive
officer.
Director
Independence
Our board has determined that each of Ms. Rich and
Messrs. Altschaefl, Jacobson, Quadracci, Schueller and
Williamson is independent under listing standards of the NYSE
Amex LLC (which we refer to as the NYSE Amex). Our
board generally uses the director independence standards set
forth by the NYSE Amex as its subjective independence criteria
for directors, and then makes an affirmative determination as to
each directors independence by taking into account other,
objective criteria as applicable.
|
|
ITEM 14.
|
PRINCIPAL
ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES
|
Grant Thornton LLP (which we refer to as GT) has
been our independent registered public accounting firm for the
past several years and audited our consolidated balance sheets
as of March 31, 2011 and March 31, 2010, and the
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders equity
and cash flows for each of years in the three-year period ended
March 31, 2011, as stated in their report appearing in our
Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011.
121
The following table presents fees billed for professional
services rendered for the audit of our annual financial
statements for fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2010 and fees billed for
other services rendered during fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2010 by GT:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2011
|
|
|
Fiscal 2010
|
|
|
Audit fees(1)
|
|
$
|
282,873
|
|
|
$
|
292,844
|
|
Audit-related fees(2)
|
|
|
14,150
|
|
|
|
14,648
|
|
Tax fees(3)
|
|
|
57,817
|
|
|
|
72,431
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fees
|
|
$
|
354,840
|
|
|
$
|
379,923
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents the aggregate fees billed for the integrated audit of
our fiscal 2011 and 2010 financial statements, respectively,
review of quarterly financial statements and attendance at audit
committee meetings and shareholder meetings. |
|
(2) |
|
Represents the aggregate fees billed for audit of our benefit
plans. |
|
(3) |
|
Represents the aggregate fees billed for tax compliance. |
The audit and finance committee has considered whether the
provision of these services not related to the audit of the
financial statements acknowledged above was compatible with
maintaining the independence of GT and is of the opinion that
the provision of these services were compatible with maintaining
GTs independence.
The audit and finance committee, in accordance with its charter,
must pre-approve all non-audit services provided by our
independent registered public accountants. The audit and finance
committee generally pre-approves specified services in the
defined categories of audit services, audit related services and
tax services up to specified amounts. Pre-approval may also be
given as part of our audit and finance committees approval
of the scope of the engagement of the independent registered
public accountants or on an individual, explicit
case-by-case
basis before the independent auditor is engaged to provide each
service.
PART IV
|
|
ITEM 15.
|
EXHIBITS AND
FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
|
Our financial statements are set forth in Item 8 of this
Form 10-K.
|
|
(b)
|
Financial
Statement Schedule
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SCHEDULE II
|
|
|
|
|
VALUATION and QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at
|
|
Provisions
|
|
|
|
Balance at
|
|
|
|
|
Beginning of
|
|
Charged to
|
|
Write offs
|
|
End of
|
|
|
|
|
Period
|
|
Expense
|
|
and Other
|
|
Period
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
|
|
$
|
79
|
|
|
|
178
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
$
|
222
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
|
|
|
222
|
|
|
|
388
|
|
|
|
228
|
|
|
|
382
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
|
|
|
382
|
|
|
|
186
|
|
|
|
132
|
|
|
|
436
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Inventory Obsolescence Reserve
|
|
$
|
530
|
|
|
|
149
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
$
|
668
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
Inventory Obsolescence Reserve
|
|
|
668
|
|
|
|
105
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
756
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
Inventory Obsolescence Reserve
|
|
|
756
|
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
811
|
|
122
EXHIBIT INDEX
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Exhibit Title
|
|
|
3
|
.1
|
|
Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Orion Energy
Systems, Inc., filed as Exhibit 3.3 to the
Registrants
Form S-1
filed August 20, 2007 (File
No. 333-145569),
is hereby incorporated by reference.
|
|
3
|
.2
|
|
Amended and Restated Bylaws of Orion Energy Systems, Inc., filed
as Exhibit 3.5 to the Registrants
Form S-1
filed August 20, 2007 (File
No. 333-145569),
is hereby incorporated by reference.
|
|
4
|
.1
|
|
Form of Warrant to purchase Common Stock of Orion Energy
Systems, Inc., filed as Exhibit 4.3 to the
Registrants
Form S-1
filed August 20, 2007 (File
No. 333-145569),
is hereby incorporated by reference.
|
|
4
|
.2
|
|
Form of Warrant to purchase Common Stock of Orion Energy
Systems, Inc., filed as Exhibit 4.4 to the
Registrants
Form S-1
filed August 20, 2007 (File
No. 333-145569),
is hereby incorporated by reference.
|
|
4
|
.3
|
|
Rights Agreement, dated as of January 7, 2009, between
Orion Energy Systems, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., which
includes as Exhibit A thereto the Form of Right Certificate
and as Exhibit B thereto the Summary of Common Share
Purchase Rights, filed as Exhibit 4.1 to the
Registrants
Form 8-A
filed January 8, 2009 (File
No. 001-33887),
is hereby incorporated by reference.
|
|
10
|
.1
|
|
Credit Agreement, dated June 30, 2010, by and among Orion
Energy Systems, Inc., Orion Asset Management LLC, Clean Energy
Solutions, LLC and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., filed as
Exhibit 10.1 to the Registrants Current Report on
Form 8-K
filed July 2, 2010 (File
No. 001-33887),
is hereby incorporated by reference.
|
|
10
|
.2
|
|
Orion Energy Systems, Inc. 2003 Stock Option Plan, as amended,
filed as Exhibit 10.6 to the Registrants
Form S-1
filed August 20, 2007 (File
No. 333-145569),
is hereby incorporated by reference.*
|
|
10
|
.3
|
|
Form of Stock Option Agreement under the Orion Energy Systems,
Inc. 2003 Stock Option Plan, filed as Exhibit 10.7 to the
Registrants
Form S-1
filed August 20, 2007 (File
No. 333-145569),
is hereby incorporated by reference.*
|
|
10
|
.4
|
|
Orion Energy Systems, Inc. 2004 Stock and Incentive Awards Plan,
filed as Exhibit 10.9 to the Registrants
Form S-1
filed August 20, 2007 (File
No. 333-145569),
is hereby incorporated by reference.*
|
|
10
|
.5
|
|
Form of Stock Option Agreement under the Orion Energy Systems,
Inc. 2004 Equity Incentive Plan, filed as Exhibit 10.10 to
the Registrants
Form S-1
filed August 20, 2007 (File
No. 333-145569),
is hereby incorporated by reference.*
|
|
10
|
.6
|
|
Form of Stock Option Agreement under the Orion Energy Systems,
Inc. 2004 Stock and Incentive Awards Plan, filed as
Exhibit 10.11 to the Registrants
Form S-1
filed August 20, 2007 (File
No. 333-145569),
is hereby incorporated by reference.*
|
|
10
|
.7
|
|
Form of Accelerated Vesting Stock Option Agreement under the
Orion Energy Systems, Inc. 2004 Stock and Incentive Awards
Plan.* +
|
|
10
|
.8
|
|
Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation.*
+
|
|
10
|
.9
|
|
Executive Employment and Severance Agreement, dated
February 21, 2008, by and between Orion Energy Systems,
Inc. and Michael J. Potts, filed as Exhibit 10.2 to the
Registrants
Form 8-K
filed February 22, 2008 (File
No. 001-33887),
is hereby incorporated by reference.*
|
|
10
|
.10
|
|
Executive Employment and Severance Agreement, dated
March 18, 2008, by and between Orion Energy Systems, Inc.
and John H. Scribante, filed as Exhibit 10.3 to the
Registrants
Form 8-K
filed March 21, 2008 (File
No. 001-33887),
is hereby incorporated by reference.*
|
|
10
|
.11
|
|
Executive Employment and Severance Agreement, dated
April 14, 2008, by and between Orion Energy Systems, Inc.
and Neal R. Verfuerth, filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the
Registrants
Form 8-K
filed April 18, 2008 (File
No. 001-33887),
is hereby incorporated by reference.*
|
|
10
|
.12
|
|
Executive Employment and Severance Agreement, dated
August 12, 2008, by and between Orion Energy Systems, Inc.
and Scott R. Jensen, filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the
Registrants Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 (File
No. 001-33887),
is hereby incorporated by reference.*
|
|
10
|
.13
|
|
Letter Agreement, dated as of August 27, 2009, between the
Company and John H. Scribante, filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the
Companys
Form 8-K
filed on September 2, 2009, is hereby incorporated by
reference.*
|
123
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
Exhibit Title
|
|
|
10
|
.14
|
|
Executive Employment and Severance Agreement, dated
September 8, 2009, by and between Stuart L. Ralsky and the
Company, filed as Exhibit 10.2 to the Companys
Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009, is
hereby incorporated by reference.*
|
|
21
|
.1
|
|
Subsidiaries of Orion Energy Systems, Inc.
+
|
|
23
|
.1
|
|
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.
+
|
|
31
|
.1
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer of Orion Energy
Systems, Inc. pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(a)
or
Rule 15d-14(a)
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. +
|
|
31
|
.2
|
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer of Orion Energy
Systems, Inc. pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(a)
or
Rule 15d-14(a)
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. +
|
|
32
|
.1
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of Orion Energy Systems, Inc. pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(b)
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
+
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement required
to be filed (and/or incorporated by reference) as an exhibit to
this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
pursuant to Item 15(a)(3) of
Form 10-K. |
|
+ |
|
Filed herewith |
124
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused
this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly
authorized, on July 22, 2011.
ORION ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.
|
|
|
|
By:
|
/s/ Neal
R. Verfuerth
|
Neal R. Verfuerth
Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
has been signed by the following persons on behalf of the
Registrant in the capacities indicated on July 22, 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
Signature
|
|
Title
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Neal
R. Verfuerth
Neal
R. Verfuerth
|
|
Chief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
|
|
|
|
/s/ Scott
R. Jensen
Scott
R. Jensen
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
|
|
|
|
/s/ Richard
Gaumer
Richard
Gaumer
|
|
Chief Accounting Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer)
|
|
|
|
/s/ James
R. Kackley
James
R. Kackley
|
|
Chairman of the Board
|
|
|
|
/s/ Michael
W. Altschaefl
Michael
W. Altschaefl
|
|
Director
|
|
|
|
/s/ Michael
J. Potts
Michael
J. Potts
|
|
Director
|
|
|
|
/s/ Thomas
A. Quadracci
Thomas
A. Quadracci
|
|
Director
|
|
|
|
/s/ Elizabeth
Gamsky Rich
Elizabeth
Gamsky Rich
|
|
Director
|
|
|
|
/s/ Thomas
N. Schueller
Thomas
N. Schueller
|
|
Director
|
|
|
|
/s/ Mark
C. Williamson
Mark
C. Williamson
|
|
Director
|
|
|
|
/s/ Tryg
C. Jacobson
Tryg
C. Jacobson
|
|
Director
|
125